Hillary Clinton 2016 Does Something Real Smart

A lot of decisions are being made now about 2016. On the big decision, we might score a win. The news today is Team Hillary to wait another three months for 2016 kickoff.

There are two big decisions we have weighed in on with regards to Hillary Clinton 2016. The two decisions are entwined like ballroom dance partners.

One of those big decisions is the heart and soul of a campaign’s message and purpose which we addressed in late 2013 in our article The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess. That decision is whether Hillary Clinton 2016 will be smart and run on a campaign of “it’s time for a change” or commit suicide in the crib by gurgling out “stay the course” or some cheesy variant of same which will be rightly seen as an Obama third term.

The other decision to be made by Hillary Clinton 2016 is whether to run at all and when to announce a run. On that question we have stomped our feet and spewed insults. We have advised a long wait before any announcement – contrary to what Barack Obama and his supporters want. We discussed this in detail in The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua

In “Shield Maiden” we documented how Obama henchmen wanted Hillary to announce immediately after the November 2014 beating of Obama. Today we might have scored an important win on the question of timing. We believe that if we prevail on the question of timing our views will also prevail on the direction of the campaign. Why? We’ll explain below. First the news of the day:

Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.

The delay from the original April target would give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.

This Politico write up is a follow-up to a breathless Politico “scoop” which assured all that the month for a go was April. As we wrote in “Shield Maiden” there are a lot of Obama supporters who want to sabotage Hillary by forcing an early announcement which will deflect attacks from Obama onto Hillary. So clearly the new revised Politico article was push back from those of us who have Hillary’s interests at heart, not Obama’s.

We don’t believe the threat from Elizabeth Wig-Wam (aided and abetted by Obama and his acolytes) has in any way receded. Indeed a delay by Hillary Clinton will help to smoke out Wig-Wam and anyone else who wants Hillary Clinton 2016 to announce before they announce. Hillary Clinton 2016 has the luxury of time which any potential opponents do not.

Hillary Clinton 2016 should wait, watch, and prepare. Already we have all seen how Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have roiled the Republican field. A lot of changes have happened already and more will come in the next several months. The best strategy is “don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes”.

If our views on the matter of timing of an announcement prevail, we will likely prevail on the direction and message of Hillary Clinton 2016. We recently were extremely perturbed by some leaks from Obama supporters who surround Hillary Clinton 2016. The leaked story made us wretch:

Clinton now ready to embrace President Obama on economy

Hillary Clinton is ready to run on President Obama’s record when it comes to the economy.

Clinton allies say that if the former secretary of State does in fact announce a second bid for the presidency this year, they expect that she’ll tether herself to a main slice of Obama’s legacy.

A series of economic reports including Friday’s positive jobs numbers is adding to Democratic confidence that the economy will finally be a winner for Obama in his last two years in office, and that it will help the Democratic White House candidate in 2016. [snip]

They also predict that Clinton will present policies distinct from those of the Obama administration she served, and even her own husband’s administration, which is regularly credited with presiding over years of strong economic growth.

This tack, allies say, will allow her to to carve out her own identity and provide her with the opportunity to speak about education, making housing more affordable and helping younger Americans find jobs and build her own narrative. [snip]

Democratic strategist Jim Manley said that he expects Clinton to “keep pretty close to the administration’s basic economic policies. But, he added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if she found ways to exploit the growing debate on economic equality.” [snip]

Republicans—from the RNC to the superPAC America Rising– are already working to portray Clinton as a third term for Obama.

She has no choice but to own the Obama economic agenda because she has been in lock-step with him on it ever since 2008,” Tim Miller, the executive director for America Rising, said Friday.

Miller said healthcare will fall under Obama’s economic package and Clinton has no choice but to own that piece as well. [snip]

Clinton allies say they are aware that Republicans will do everything to tie her to Obama’s policies.

That article was written in the middle of January. By the end of January the Obama economic recovery of 2015 is about as believable as the Obama economic “recovery Summer” of 2010. It’s about as believable as the “glimmers of hope” Obama advertised in 2009 and which we mocked:

Obama is doomed to fail because his policies do not make sense. Neither the “stimulus” scam nor the 2009 budget nor the 2010 budget nor any of the other Santa wish lists Dimocrats greedily rub their palms in contemplation of, deal with the central issue of the financial crisis. We have called repeatedly for a comprehensive, coordinated, detailed, and well explained, economic plan that tackles the central financial issues and creates/saves the American financial system. Barack Obama economic “plans” provide for none of these criteria.

We were right in 2009. Now in 2015 Obama supporters who want Hillary to be Obama’s Shield Maiden are trying to make her believe this latest Obama wreckovery. It’s cash for clunkers 2015 with Hillary Clinton 2016 as the dupe ready to be set up.

The good news is that the longer Hillary Clinton 2016 waits the sooner the latest Obama economic “recovery” will be exposed as another bit of glimmering fools’ gold. Peter Shiff provides an alternate explanation of the current state of the American economy:

The longer Hillary Clinton 2016 waits to possibly launch the more obvious it will be that Peter Shiff is closer to the truth that the truth adverse Obama. So we advise wait, wait, wait. And prepare… for a “time for a change” campaign. Barack Obama and his henchmen are setting up Hillary Clinton to fail in 2015 and 2016.

The longer Hillary Clinton 2016 waits to announce and prepares a reality based campaign for change, the better. While some speculated that the delay news was tied to Benghazi news or foreign policy news we doubt it.

Benghazi, foreign policy, economic policy, the sun, the moon, the stars aligned will not be a problem for Hillary Clinton 2016. The only problem for Hillary Clinton 2016 is Barack Obama. Tie Hillary to Barack and the product will look like a Michelle Obama “fashion” outfit dragged through the Chicago stockyards.

A Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign based in reality and a demand for change is the smart way to go – much later this year.


154 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton 2016 Does Something Real Smart

  1. from end of last thread:

    Shadow – I agree with you, who knows what degrees he really has, I think maybe someone “assembled” him, gave him degrees, etc. And yes, they called him a constitutional law professor when he was a part-time lecturer, and IIRC, his “constitution” class was about – wait for it – race.

    I don’t know how law schools handle “teacher terms”, but I remember in graduate school, some faculty would get pissed if you referred to a lecturer as “professor” (you were considered to be elevating the lecturer).

    In terms of the PhD, though, remember that means “doctor of philosophy”, so they are always addressed as “Dr. so and so”. Their position may be “professor”, but their title is “Dr.”

    Perhaps some programs are different, but I believe most PhD programs are 5 years long (post B.A.), and include a dissertation. I think law school is always 3 years (post B.A)…?

    So, Obama wasn’t in school long enough for a PhD, and he is never referred to as “Dr.”. And I don’t believe he even deserved the law degree, as he seems to know very little about the law (as you know!).

    With all that he is doing, I’m worried we may not make it 2 more years. I’m starting to believe he is trying to collapse our country – our economy, our culture, our history of striving to be the best and the brightest…..

  2. Amen Admin!!!

    Hey ya Admin, do you think that the Clinton’s really feed this info to Politico? The July date???

    Funny thing is that she has screwed the donkey if she says, “I don’t want to run”, in July. The Dims will be caught with their pants down, donors will be sitting on their money bags and Joe and Featherhead will be running around pretending they have a chance of becoming the next President.

    I hope Hillary waits for the reason’s you mentioned and also just to let Barry bury himself further, the Kooks squirm with HOPE for their little pokeYerHontas.

    Hillary can kick up her feet while planning her best attack.

    Hopefully the Queen on the chessboard sets up her long awaited checkmate.

  3. lorac

    …Perhaps some programs are different, but I believe most PhD programs are 5 years long (post B.A.), and include a dissertation. I think law school is always 3 years (post B.A

    I think some campuses have different lengths for different fields of study. Many Ph. D. programs are two years of Grad classes, then the prep for Orals, then the research begins, and the entire process to graduation is a total of 5-6 years. Some are lecturers and spend their time doing that and don’t graduate for years. Like you said Law Schools might be different, and even programs from one University to another might be different…but ‘anyone’ can be a lecturer. A grad student, someone with working experience in the private sector, and Professors.

    I agree with you, it’s easy for a few people to set Barry up, toss around some fake titles and build his CV out of toilet paper.

  4. A Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign based in reality and a demand for change is the smart way to go – much later this year.

    Good news, Admin. Hillary’s holding all the cards, and has no reason to hurry,
    As always you offer Hillary sound advice. Let’s hope she has decided to take it.

  5. So who disagrees with Reagan economic adviser David Stockman on this?:


    Stockman’s specific concern is gains in the stock market, which he say have contributed massively to wealth inequality. Since he maintains that stocks have been propped up by the actions of the Federal Reserve, he has a problem with the money that Americans have made from rising stocks.

    Profits off of stocks are “totally ill-gotten gains,” Stockman said Thursday on CNBC’s “Futures Now.”

    “This is a massive windfall to the 5 percent or 1 percent” wealthiest American households, he said. “This prosperity we’ve had in the top 5 percent—and that’s where most of the consumption growth has been—is entirely a function of artificially ballooning stock prices and other risk assets.”

    Meanwhile, “the ‘Main Street’ households in America are not doing well. Their incomes are not growing.” [snip]

    Obama “is talking about a symptom, but he’s clueless as to the cause. The cause is not capitalism. The cause is not some entrepreneur out there trying to invent something and improve the performance of his business. The problem is in the Eccles building [home to the main office of the Fed] and in the 12 people sitting there and thinking that interest rates are some magic elixir that’ll cause this very troubled and difficult economy to revive,” Stockman said.

    “It’s not true,” he said. “These people are dangerous and destructive, and they’re creating this massive income inequality that, sooner or later, is going to cause a huge political reaction.”

    That said, because Stockman thinks that stocks are set to plunge, he believes that those who have their money in the market are set to lose a great deal of it.

    “We’ve had two huge bubbles that collapsed already in this century,” he said. “When this third bubble collapses—and surely it will—I believe that will be the day of reckoning. The credibility of all this central-bank-dominated, Wall-Street-coddling policy will be totally repudiated, and maybe then we can clean the slate and start over.”

    Hillary, run against the Obama economy.

  6. I am hoping Benghazi is a factor…I want the truth. That was the 3am call.
    I am disgusted as to how she handed her part. I always knew the fraud couldn’t handle anything, but Hillary…I so expected more from her.
    And her posturing, and love affair with all things obama, are putrid.

  7. http://www.hughhewitt.com/romney-statement-not-running-ive-decided-best-give-leaders-party-opportunity-become-next-nominee/

    The Romney Statement: Not Running. “I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.

    I’ve been emailed this text of remarks Mitt Romney will be making to his supporters shortly:

    Let me begin by letting you know who else is on this call, besides Ann and me. There are a large number of people who signed on to be leaders of our 2016 finance effort. In addition, state political leadership from several of the early primary states are on the line. And here in New York City, and on the phone, are people who have been helping me think through how to build a new team, as well as supporters from the past who have all been kind enough to volunteer their time during this deliberation stage. Welcome, and thank you. Your loyalty and friendship, and your desire to see the country with new, competent and conservative leadership warms my heart.

    After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.

    Let me give you some of my thinking. First, I am convinced that with the help of the people on this call, we could win the nomination. Our finance calls made it clear that we would have enough funding to be more than competitive. With few exceptions, our field political leadership is ready and enthusiastic about a new race. And the reaction of Republican voters across the country was both surprising and heartening. I know that early poll numbers move up and down a great deal during a campaign, but we would have no doubt started in a strong position. One poll out just today shows me gaining support and leading the next closest contender by nearly two to one. I also am leading in all of the four early states. So I am convinced that we could win the nomination, but fully realize it would have been difficult test and a hard fight.

    I also believe with the message of making the world safer, providing opportunity to every American regardless of the neighborhood they live in, and working to break the grip of poverty, I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee, but that is before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters.

    I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.

    I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president. But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president. You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country. But we believe it is for the best of the Party and the nation.

    I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely. Accordingly, I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team.

    I encourage all of you on this call to stay engaged in the critical process of selecting a Republican nominee for President. Please feel free to sign up on a campaign for a person who you believe may become our best nominee.

    I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

    To all my supporters, friends and family who worked both tirelessly and loyally to support my campaigns in the past, I will always be deeply appreciative. What you have already done is a tribute to your patriotism. We are overwhelmed and humbled by your loyalty to us, by your generosity of spirit, and by your friendship. God bless you all.


    At the conclusion of a campaign, or a term in office, it is customary for the candidate who is leaving the scene to turn over his list of donors to the victor or successor, as this serves to promote party unity and retain the base.

    When Hillary abandoned her 2008 campaign she gave her list of contributors to Obama, and they started contacting me. I called them and told them to stop harassing me and they took my name off the list, but the point is they had my name.

    Contrary to that custom however Obama has refused to give the list of his donors to Hillary. This information comes from a friend of mine who read it in the Chinese newspaper a couple days ago.

    If this is true, then it is clear evidence of an intend by Obama, and those who stand in his shadow, to retain a power base all to himself separate and apart from the Democratic Party but capable of influencing its future direction.

    In other words, a SHADOW PARTY whose purpose is to perpetuate this totalitarian revolution to dismantle America.

    This reeks of George Soros. I have studied him in great detail and written a long paper on his, with the excellent help of two people who are no longer on this blog–Mrs. Smith and Confloyd wrote a 50 page paper analyzing how he has operated over the past 50 years in excruciating detail, and believe me, this move has his finger prints all over it.

    Please comment.

  9. “July” is great news, admin, I’m thrilled.

    I was hoping for Labor Day, but July is already a lot better than March or April: Summer instead of Spring.

    Let Obola and the Republican Congress swing separately in the wind for as long as you want, Hillary. Every day that passes is another brick in your edifice.

    And it jibes with the strategy you advise re the Republican hopefuls: “Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes….” I hadn’t thought of that, and it’s spot-on.

    I can see the Republican primaries now: “X-Hillary this” versus “X-Hillary that”. The R primaries will be all about her. And she doesn’t have to address “this” or “that” until they’ve chosen their poison:

    Which will it be, boys? Sarin gas for the lot of you or Hemlock for the few worthy ones?

    On the very important economic aspects of what HRC will propose:

    I will be writing up a more detailed analysis of what I know HRC will propose, or will probably propose, or should propose given my own knowledge of business and economics, which I will post here maybe tomorrow.

    It will take me a day or two to generate this post, but I hope you and everybody else will read it, and comment. I sketched out the program in a post a week or two ago, and got some favorable response; but your “wretching” when reading the “leaked story” you reference tells me that the post last week did not hit home.

    In short, it can be said that Obola’s policy has been to spur demand, but in a way that has not produced the desired results; and that, in the manner of someone who does the same things over and over, expecting different results, he is indeed crazy.

    The author’s statement that HRC will support Obola’s economic record, and have something of her own to add, is spot-on.

    It is important for us to understand what that “something” is, and also what Obola’s contribution has been, with open eyes, in order to interpret his perceived failures and take this “leaked story” in stride.

  10. And believe you me, this is Classic Soros. The world’s largest currency trader who like the Baron de Rothschilde is forever hedging.

    Over here, he is in the center of the Ready for Hillary campaign.

    Over there, he is advising Obama, don’t give her the campaign donor list.

    He is evil personified.

    But nobody seems to realize it.

    They obsess over the Kock Brothers.

    But they give the word’s oldest Nazi, the one who looted the belongings of Jews sent to death camps in Hungary, and sixty years later in an interview with Steve Kroft said this did not trouble him, because this was no different than a market transaction, wherein he was the winner and they were the losers. The guy who promoted the colors revolutions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. The guy who looted their economies, etc. The guy who in the midst of Nazi terror sounded so much like Wordsworth speaking of the French Revolution: “bliss was it in that dawn to be alive. But to be young was very heaven.”

    This is truly a guy that should have been a defendant at Nurenberg. Watch him closely. His reaction to the Cavuto memo is similar to Eichman. A human rat, cornered and fleeing for cover.

  11. Well, as you can see he has disabled it. But is still available on Google if you are interested. Note: he is also the man who crashed the British pound in 1992, created the Asian monetary crisis in 1997, and he is the godfather of Obama–his conduit is Wolfe of UBC. You have got to watch this guy closely. If you hear something outlandish about him, do not dismiss it out of hand, because on the odds, it is probably true.

  12. Shadowfax January 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Big Dawg… still has it, and looking good Bill! Always loved Bill.

    This is a tautology, actually. WJC is love incarnate. He loves people. He connects at the level of the heart, and that’s why people love him back. People may disagree with his head, but they can’t hate him. Hate has to come from the gut and the heads of the people who disagree with him don’t reach that far.

    I’ve met WJC and HRC in person, but separately. You can believe me when I say that the impressions I had were starkly different: let’s say a 90° difference in styles. It has nothing to do with their opinions or objectives, which are quite similar if not identical.

    It’s their approach to people.

    I’m convinced that HRC doesn’t “love” anybody, at least not automatically and at first sight, like WJC does. Her mind is tempered by warm heartstrings, in the knowledge that “everybody is equal” and just like her from the get-go. But she doesn’t show those heartstrings in public.

    “Everybody is equal” is fundamental to WJC’s love bond as well. But with HRC, she covers up those heartstrings and lets her steel trap of a mind do the talking.

    Isn’t everybody equal for Hillary? Sure, but for Hillary, in the rough-and-tumble of American politics, there are a boatload of people on high horses that want to stop her, give her a tough time, and accuse of her the most outrageous conduct and intentions.

    She either fights these people with her mind, or if that’s not possible, she gives up and ignores them while inwardly stewing up hatred for them — mainly for a large swath of the media. I think she believes these people should know better, and just refuses to talk to them. Her campaign’s announcement that her new attitude toward the media is the “good cop” mystifies me, really. Makes me think maybe she’s been through psycho-therapy.

    When I “met” WJC at a CGI session, on the other hand, I didn’t say anything, but I had a strong feeling that I could. Several times, he looked directly at me and I felt like I was the only person in the room of about 20 people; that his words were meant for me personally and he was developing his ideas for my benefit.

    That didn’t make me love him any more, actually, but that’s because I have the same democratic “everybody is equal” love for everyone that WJC has — in that particular case, for everyone who was in the room that day. Anyway, the overall impression was: “This man is accessible. I can say anything I want to him.” That is, I could contradict him or fight him and he wouldn’t hold it against me.

    However, when I met HRC in 2003 in the company of MM, as I’ve already recounted here, I was speechless. I yearned to ask her if she would run for president in 2004, but I couldn’t summon up the courage to get the words out. All I did was witness the gales of laughter between MM and HRC as they shared jokes about life in NYC. (MM was a very special young woman of 17, a native of Manhattan, well-educated with undeniable native intelligence, very direct and not standoff-ish.)

    Now, I have met my share of world leaders before. As far as style and approach goes, I would liken WJC to Gorbachev and Shimon Peres. They had an inbred meekness that made me feel like “I can talk to this guy”, just like WJC.

    I would put HRC, though, in a basket with three French presidents: De Gaulle, Mitterrand and Sarkozy. I never met Sarkozy; but he, like the others, brings HRC to mind:

    In public, HRC speaks her mind, takes hits for it, rolls with the punches and comes back laughing and swinging, like the punching bag that she unfortunately is. It’s remarkable, really, to the point that her adversaries come to hate her for it. They hated her when they tried to bring her down with “scandals” like Travelgate, Whitewater and such, in response to which she could be seen partying and laughing with Bill, apparently impervious to the sticks and stones the haters were throwing at her.

    This public persona was all I knew of her when I met her in 2003. Despite the personal connection she struck up immediately with MM right in front of me, I couldn’t get over my knowledge of what she stood for in the public mind: The steel trap in her head, the ability to shoot back an ironclad answer to every question…. things I admired about her, but I could only stand in awe. If I ever met Sarkozy, I’d react the same way — and Sarkozy, I certainly don’t love much.

    I don’t think the general public will ever see the private HRC or even believe it exists. Her campaign tried to get this across in a video of personal testimonies published in 2007 and still available on the Internet. McCain has called her “one of the guys” and she has made friends with the likes of Lindsay Graham, who had led the charge to get WJC expelled from the White House. These two potentially inimical creatures were exposed to her personally as they rubbed elbows with her, and they succumbed to her charms.

    But I doubt HRC will ever strike up the love bond with the public that WJC has. For my part, I don’t care a farthing: Since I love everyone right off the bat like WJC, having started with the democratic “everybody is equal” credo that WJC and HRC both believe, I’m willing to follow HRC wherever she leads us, and criticize her words on the face of them without trying to love her any more than I do.

    (btw, HRC thought a lot of Sarkozy — read Hard Choices! Gotta hand it to the fucker, he’s got some insight: maybe HRC understood when Sarkozy called Obola a “misfit” right off the bat in 2009.)

  13. Wbboei, no surprise. Obama wants to force Hillary to be his shield maiden that is why the fight over lists. If the price of the list is obeisance to Obama or protection of Obama then Hillary should say “fu*k you”.

    The Hill wrote about the email lists a short while back:


    Obama, Clinton tensions build over email lists ahead of 2016

    New tensions are emerging in the relationship between allies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    At issue is the fate of the political equivalent of gold dust — the enormous email list, comprised of many millions of supporters and donors, that the Obama team has compiled over the course of his two presidential campaigns.

    The Clinton camp would dearly love to get its hands on the list, but there is no promise as yet that the president’s aides will comply.

    There are “large concerns” about the lists among Clinton supporters, one Hillary ally told The Hill.

    To the Clintons and their friends, it’s near unthinkable that a Democratic president — who has plenty of reasons to want a member of his party to succeed him — would withhold such a valuable commodity. [snip]

    But a senior Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama operation noted that, among the millions of names and emails on the famous lists, there were many people whose primary loyalty was to Barack Obama rather than to the Democratic Party.

    Asked about the likely fate of the data, the strategist expressed uncertainty as to how the internal discussions would shake out. The person floated the idea of a compromise under which Obama could send out emails to his own list, but then include a link to a Hillary-specific site to which his supporters could donate.

    The gathering storm over the email lists is just the latest example of the complicated dynamics that underpin the Obama-Clinton relationship. It is revealing that the tensions have flared before the former first lady has even officially launched her 2016 campaign.

    Obama himself might have made the first big speech of the 2016 election last week, with his State of the Union address. The president asserted that he had been vindicated by events in the face of Republican opposition, tweaked the GOP a number of times, and made appeals to key demographic groups, including women and Latinos.

    Obama might not be on the ballot in November 2016, but the election will mean a great deal for his legacy.

    For any president, even an outgoing one, such an election is inevitably seen as a referendum on their tenure. For Obama specifically, a Democratic successor would solidify his biggest achievements — notably healthcare reform — whereas a Republican in the Oval Office would seek to dislodge them.[snip]

    One question is what Obama can do to help Clinton — or whoever turns out to be the Democratic nominee — to win.

    During last year’s midterms, Senate Democrats all but begged him to stay off the campaign trail and the airwaves. But now, with the economy accelerating, gas prices falling and Obama’s approval rating once again reaching 50 percent in some polls, 2016 could be a very different story.

    The nature of Obama’s involvement is “really going to depend upon where his approval ratings are,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. “If it’s a wash, I think he will trot out a little, where he is beloved.”

    But, Berkovitz added, “if the economy is considered close to booming, Obama will absolutely take full credit for that and the Republicans will be screwed.”

    Democratic strategist Chris Lehane asserted that “the economic wind is at the president’s back for the first time in a meaningful way” and that, when the 2016 campaign rolls around, Obama could “goose that feeling up a bit.”

    Potential Democratic nominees, including Clinton, are sure to capitalize on the nation’s brightening economic mood.

    “The economy is rocking,” a second Clinton ally said. “Why wouldn’t she piggyback off that to an extent?”

    But Lehane and others noted that, whoever turned out to be the Democratic nominee, she or he needed to find a way to emphasize that they were distinct from Obama, without being seen as overtly critical of him.

    “If it is Hillary, there are places where making the election a referendum on President Obama could be a positive thing — like his support for increasing the minimum wage,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney. “But there are areas, specifically in foreign policy, where we know they disagree.”

    But, Finney added, “in the general election, regardless of who it is, the main point of contrast will be between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee.”

    There is awareness in the Obama and Clinton camps, and across the broader Democratic Party, that it would be inappropriate for the president to get directly involved in the primary process.

    But once a nominee is decided, Clinton allies say, a show of unambiguous enthusiasm will be expected.
    “She wants his support, she wants his donors and she wants his validation of her policies,” another Clinton backer said. “She’s proven that she’s been a serious supporter of his. And she would ask the same for him.”

    The famous email list could provide the first key example of whether that unreserved endorsement will be forthcoming.

    Any “Clinton supporter” that believes the economy is booming and that Hillary should attach herself to Obama is either an idiot or a closet Obama supporter posing as an Hillary supporter.

    The email list fight is proof of Obama’s real intentions towards Hillary.

    If Hillary decides to run she will have to run on a “change” platform that is not in any way half-assed. She will have to attack Obama. If Hillary is not willing to do that she will wind up with Mitt.

  14. What is Biden up to?:


    At an event this morning, Vice President Joe Biden told Democrats that, “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country.”

    “And they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel]. They’ve been really tough for our party. And together we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain,” said Biden.

    Biden was speaking at the House Democratic Caucus retreat in Philadelphia.

  15. Biden… what is Mitt up to??? Borgia Italy:


    Early word of Mr. Romney’s decision sent waves through the Republican donor world early Friday, as Romney aides began to telegraph the news to donors and other staff members and strategists. Some donors immediately began calling representatives of other potential candidates, such as Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, to discuss offering their support.

    Mr. Romney’s announcement started a day of reckoning with his would-be rivals. He is scheduled to have dinner with Mr. Christie on Friday evening, according to two people with knowledge of his schedule, suggesting that Mr. Romney may be considering throwing his support, and that of his own political operation, to Mr. Christie. The two men are friendly, and Mr. Christie, along with Mr. Bush, was a main rival of Mr. Romney for the favor of the Republican establishment.

  16. Over there, he is advising Obama, don’t give her the campaign donor list.

    For as many times as I have been intentionally RUDE to the Obama DNC, demanding them to take me off their list, cussing at them until my face turned blue, they still bombard me with emails and mail almost daily.

    Some of Oh’s list are corrupt ACORN abusers…some are stolen ID’s of people who have died, many are from other countries.

    Maybe, just maybe they might worry that exposing the list would not account for the masses of legitimate voters that they claimed to have???

  17. I think at this point it is good that the O’camp doesn’t turn over the list to Hillary.

    Things like this action reminds her of the scars on her back and which backstabbers put them there!

    Hillary, he was your abusive boss, he wasn’t your friend, he isn’t someone you admire. He used you for your brains, your advice, your voters and now you hold all the cards with him.

    You have the knowledge to expose what’s in his closet…be wise, take your time and then come out swinging.

  18. Hate Bush, liked Romney. Good guy, probably would have been a decent President 4 years ago.
    We need Churchill…don’t see one

  19. Admins says:

    A Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign based in reality and a demand for change is the smart way to go – much later this year.


    agree…Hillary should be organizing her own campaign that distinguishes herself apart from O (again, if she has to reflect, use Bill) (she does not owe O anything to keep his (botched, lazy) “legacy” intact)…and she should be able to say “this is what I would do and not be afraid to say mistakes were made

    I want her campaign about her ideas…the best of Bill’s…and put O in the past (pasture)…

    in effect, Hillary should say “it’s time to turn the O page…the country is more divided and it is time to unite…” touche! (oh would I love to hear that!)


    btw…it would be nice to wake up and find that the O years were just a bad dream…instead of the reality we have been dragged through…

    Dems waiting for the Clintons to bring back the ‘human touch’ and inclusiveness back to politics…(I think there are many repubs secretly wishing for it too)


  20. S

    in effect, Hillary should say “it’s time to turn the O page…the country is more divided and it is time to unite…” touche! (oh would I love to hear that!)

    I have a feeling we might hear something like that.

    On one level it may be interpreted as a division between the Oh-camp and the Hillary camp of the Dim party. On the other hand, if worded correctly it will stand for all American’s that have been pitted against each other, and the race division that has grown with the first, half black pResident.

  21. Why bother a fight over an email list…she doesn’t need his email list, Bill and her can build that in no time. So forget about it.

    As for Romney…funny how Jeb and Romney met in a meeting a few days ago and suddenly Mitt is out.

  22. Moon, EXACTLY. Bush had a big met with Romney and “shockingly” suddenly Romney is bowing out. Sure thing.

  23. Dems waiting for the Clintons to bring back the ‘human touch’ and inclusiveness back to politics…(I think there are many repubs secretly wishing for it too)

    S, I agree. A few months ago some of the polls were showing that Hillary would receive a sizable number of Republican votes. I haven’t checked lately, but I sure that number has fallen, since she has publicly approved of some of O’s initiatives and edicts. That’s what makes no sense. The far left can’t deliver the WH for her – even if she won them over, which she won’t (they may pretend she has for now). But centrists Democrats and moderate Repubs could elect her.

  24. moononpluto
    January 30, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Mitt’s obviously been promised something by Jeb Bush……..

    Sec of State? Treasury? VP?

    Maybe, but some are reporting that Mitt might toss his support to Christie, and in his ‘giving up speech’, he mentions it’s time for someone new, that might not be well known…

    Adios Mitt, you might be a nice guy but you have to be tough too. You walked away with less knives in your back than Hillary did.

  25. Anyone who wants to know the secret of Obozo’s Harvard degree has only to look at Moochels education history on Wiki. She was a great student and really has the brains. She became his mentor while he was in law school and they were married after he graduated. In other words, Barack Obama’s Harvard Law Graduation was Michelle’s second.

  26. As far as Obama’s donors lists, they are as real as his Harvard Degree. When we did the FECK Obama project, analyzing the 2008 campaign contributions from his 2 million donors, we found there were actually less than 700,000 and around 28% of his campaign money was just dirty money laundered under the pretext the donor were under the reporting limit. The 2012 campaign looked like more of the same.

    His campaign contributions are on file with the FEC and Hillary probably knows all the ones not on record. I do not think he has anything she should want.

  27. Mitt and Ann have had a busy day…lunch with Chelsea and Marc



    At lunch, the Romneys dined with Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky — a political pairing with high potential for awkwardness after Romney bashed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on foreign policy and her understanding of the U.S. economy at a speech in Mississippi earlier in the week.

    But Ann Romney had only kind things to say about Hillary Clinton’s daughter on Friday.

    “It was fantastic. She’s very inspiring,” Ann Romney said of dining with Chelsea Clinton.

    Did they discuss the 2016 presidential election?

    “We talked about disease. Brain disease,” she said.

    Was she happy about Romney’s decision to forgo a third presidential run?

    “Yes,” she smiled as she shut her car door. She declined to comment about which candidate the Romneys will support in 2016.

    Chelsea Clinton and Mezvinksy left the building holding hands a few minutes before the Romneys, and declined to answer any questions.

    On Wednesday, before announcing he will not run for President, Romney described Hillary Clinton as “clueless” about relations with Russia, and criticized her understanding of the U.S. economy.

    “How can Secretary Clinton provide opportunity for all if she doesn’t know where jobs come from in the first place?” Romney said, according to the New York Times.



  28. Southern Born
    January 30, 2015 at 8:13 pm
    Michelle was a great student and really has the brains? Well who knew!



    I was going to go all out on her, but I am trying to dial back being tooooo catty. 😉

  29. S
    Mitt and Ann have had a busy day…lunch with Chelsea and Marc

    What the hay…

    Did everyone wanting to run for President in 2016, both sides of the isle get together for a pow wow and decide who should run?

    The shrubs called the Clinton’s before Jeb announced.

  30. Lu4PUMA
    January 30, 2015 at 7:58 pm
    Anyone who wants to know the secret of Obozo’s Harvard degree has only to look at Moochels education history on Wiki. She was a great student and really has the brains. She became his mentor while he was in law school and they were married after he graduated. In other words, Barack Obama’s Harvard Law Graduation was Michelle’s second.


    And, Meechelle is the only one of the couple who was ever a licensed attorney, or so I have previously read. However, she reportedly, allowed her license to lapse. Obamalam never had a license. Don’t know if he never sat for the bar exam or did so, but flunked it. My guess is he never took the exam.

    I guess Barack had little reason to focus on his legal career since he was destined to become the Chosen One, the Light Bringer, The One We had Been Waiting For. There’s only so much a man can PRETEND to do in one lifetime.

  31. admin:

    Obama might not be on the ballot in November 2016, but the election will mean a great deal for his legacy.

    Yes indeed, that is the only thing on the small minds of O team. It is their sole objective, an obsession.

    But as the article also points out, the only way to ensure a half-decent Obola legacy is with a 2016 win by a Democrat who has some good things to say about Obola.

    HRC furnishes that good, or evil if you wish (and I will try to explain that in my upcoming posts), and also happens to be the only Democrat that can possibly win in 2016. So Team Hillary has Team Obola by the balls.

    Disputes over things like email lists will either be ironed out in time, or Team Hillary will just do without them:

    ReadyForHillary already has a list of over 3 million, and HRC hasn’t even declared yet. That list is overkill to win her the nomination, and will lubricate the rails to the Oval Office too, because no Republican candidate/nominee can come anywhere near it.

    So: Fuck Team Obola; Fuck Warren, Webb, Sanders or whatever; and Fuck whatever assholes the Republicans come up with.

    (Sorry, “assholes” doesn’t apply to a few Republicans.)

  32. wbboei January 31, 2015 at 2:09 am

    The bigger they are the harder they fall

    The fatter they are the louder they crash

    Good thing I’m not sensitive about it, because I am both very tall and portly. That’s why I’m careful not to step in bullshit — might slip on it and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could never…

  33. admin:

    Any “Clinton supporter” that believes the economy is booming and that Hillary should attach herself to Obama is either an idiot or a closet Obama supporter posing as an Hillary supporter.

    Please read my upcoming posts on this subject. In short, you’re right to refute the idea that the economy is “booming,” but HRC can still support Obola’s efforts in this field, even if the economy slumps again as it probably will.

    My posts are due for later today or tomorrow.

  34. gonzotx January 30, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    Hate Bush, liked Romney. Good guy, probably would have been a decent President 4 years ago.
    We need Churchill…don’t see one

    0° agreement about Romney.

    But does “Bush” mean Shrub3 or one of the others? I would agree 0° on Dubya, not about so about Shrub1; but do you mean the one wearing the Sombrero?

    Naw, Speedy Gonzalez was a half-decent governor of Florida when I was living there. Or maybe 40% decent, or 33% decent. But no less than that. Not “hate” material….

    I remember, he intervened in the case of a coma patient whose husband wanted to pull the plug just like the coma patient had clearly stated in her will. Speedy intervened, demanded that the doctors do their job, and allowed the patient’s parents to foot the medical bill; and as far as I know, the vegetable is still “living” now, 10 years later. Shrub3 is a bona fide pro-lifer. Can you hate him for that?

    Also, when I was in Florida, we the people suffered two overrated hurricanes that left Florida with a couple of palm trees knocked down along with a pizza shack that was too close to the beach. Appealing to his brother in the White House, Shrub3 pocketed €10 billion and €11 billion respectively for hurricane damages, said sums being forked over within a week by FEMA, which therefore didn’t have a penny left in its coffers when Katrina hit New Orleans.

    Can you hate Shrub3 for defending his state’s people in such timely fashion? As for Katrina, I know that Texans opened their hearts and wallets to help those who fled New Orleans; but Texas is Shrub2’s state, not Shrub3’s, so that can’t be held against Shrub3.

    Now, there is the matter of immigration that I know is important to you, in light of the picture you drew of the current situation in Texas.

    First of all, I can firmly state that there were no visible immigration problems in Florida when I was there. It was not an issue. The Cuban population in Miami was wealthy and left to carry out their weapons acquisitions and military training to their hearts’ content.

    I intuit that, in the White House, the sombreroed Speedy would countermand the recent DHS Directive and return to the time-honored policy of doing absolutely nothing about the immigration problem. The current situation would thus remain the same, and you wouldn’t have to worry about the hypothetical damages of the DHS Directive. So, can you hate him for that?

    Bottom line on Shrub3: Hate is unjustified and won’t do you any good anyway: All you can do is to cast one vote for the other guy.

    As to your yearning for a new Churchill, we are once again in 0° agreement. But I quench my own thirst for a Churchill by supporting Hillary Clinton, because if you look closely at that historical figure and look closely at the history of the present one, you can see that they are 0° to each other in character, and that HRC has the advantages of proven competence and a very clear knowledge of the path the world has followed, and the US in particular, since Churchill’s time.

  35. moononpluto January 30, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Why bother a fight over an email list…she doesn’t need his email list, Bill and her can build that in no time. So forget about it.

    Exactly, moon. You said it much more succinctly than I did.

  36. Shadowfax January 30, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    … some are reporting that Mitt might toss his support to Christie, and in his ‘giving up speech’, he mentions it’s time for someone new, that might not be well known…

    Strange, I thought Mitt was pretty intelligent. If he supports Christie, I’d have to revise my estimate way down.

    Adios Mitt, you might be a nice guy but you have to be tough too. You walked away with less knives in your back than Hillary did.

    Good point, I’d never thought of it that way…

  37. Hey Shadowfax — and freespirit: before you nix the champagne-drenched victory party altogether, let me just give you a possible scenario of how you could use it to your advantage and that of “the cause”:

    As I understand it, you are besieged by Obots at work. If you don’t have enough HRC supporters to rev a party among friends, you could let some of these Obots crash your lovely party, promising them something that might be better than the koolaid they will have been drinking for 9 years straight, plus great snacks.

    Make sure they don’t think you want to “rub it into their noses”. I doubt that would get you anything but more enemies anyway. Rather, you approach would be either to:

    (1) convert them to Hillary-tolerant zombies; or

    (2) let any nutjobs who don’t seem conducive to psychiatric treatment to sleep overnight and, at sunrise, let freespirit gun them down mercilessly in their bedclothes and then slaughter them, pig-style: hang them by their toes and slit their throats, collect the blood for sausage, cut up and cook their remains to a crisp, and serve them up as hallal “camel-burgers” to the rest of your Obot “friends” at work;

    (3) pack any other stubborn nutjobs who may be conducive to medical care in your baggage and take them on a flight to France (but with you two in business class and the nutjobs down with the pets), where I will get them locked up in one of the famed French funny farms without rubber or any other kind of walls, but strait jackets tethered to an anchor, plus appropriate meds and qualified doctors, while you and I continue the party soaked in Badoit or whatever you like (bring your own Drambuie); but the atmosphere is guaranteed to be jubilant in that faraway land, and you’ll find lots of new friends.

    Now, to triage these three groups, the champagne won’t do the job. What you need is some snacks.

    For snacks, I will send you a half-dozen slices of headcheese and, when you serve this, you will know who is recoverable (case 1), those who are hopeless (case 2), and those who could use some medical help in hopium withdrawal.

    Case 1 will take one look at the headcheese and ask what is. You explain, and they politely ask for peanuts, popcorn or chips instead. You know — these would be reasonable people, give them a chance to come around!

    Case 2 will not even look at the headcheese or ask what it is, but will wolf it down and ask for more, then pull out a flask of hopium because the champagne, unlike the headcheese, is not his “cup of tea”. “Off with his head,” as Poom-bah would say. I say “he” because only a man would be ill-mannered enough to wolf down the snacks, or insensitive enough to like headcheese.

    Case 3 will look at your snack and try it before asking what it is, then ask what it is and hold back a burp when you tell him or her. He will then politely “try” again, say it’s “nice” and ask for the bathroom. Thereafter, he will pilfer popcorn or peanuts from Case 1. He might not appreciate the champagne either, and eye Case 2’s flask of hopium; but he forgot to bring any to the party, and he’s too polite to ask for any. When he goes for the door at the party’s end, he’ll politely say the champagne and snacks were great. That’s when you tell him it’s too late to go home, to stay overnight, and to use this straitjacket here for pajamas. Give him another glass of champagne for beddy-bye.

    Then you’re ready to sending Case 1 merrily on her way and get back to slaughtering Case 2. You will even have time to serve up the delicious camel-burgers at work.

    All this time, Case 3 will be patiently waiting, already half-packed and waiting to climb into your suitcase for the trip to some unnamed destination where the jubilance over HRC’s accession to power is matched by their judgment of Obola as an “aliéné” — use the French word on Case 3, ‘cause it sounds nice but actually means “misfit” or “sociopath”. What Case 3 doesn’t know won’t hurt him, because it never has.

  38. My apologies to camels for equating their meat with that of humans. Their noble creatures who do not deserve the insult; but as I see it, they don’t understand English and not much Arabic either, so they’ll never know….

    I had a camel-burger in Abu Dhabi. It was OK, tasted like a McDonald’s hamburger burnt to a crisp. I don’t know why I just said that, because I’ve never had a burned MacDo. McDonald’s would have to hire Obola as chef so I could taste one.

  39. jes, I’ve seen that headcheese stuff, and I don’t think I could bring myself to put it in my grocery cart, let alone on my table – not even for Hillary. lol

    camel burger? You’re braver than this vegetarian!

  40. freespirit January 31, 2015 at 11:38 am

    I understand, but then just let Shadowfax handle the headcheese and you take care of Case 2. I’m sure you’d love that! lol

  41. Time is working in Hillary’s favor.

    By delaying her announcement, she flushes out the cockroaches, and has no need to answer their wild charges.

    Case in point: Bernie Sanders, i.e. she is not bold enough, so he says.

    He is a quack. If his delusional political philosophy were adopted, he might be dangerous. But fortunately he is not bold bold enough. He just runs his mouth–and blindly supports Obama who is the anthesis of all he professes to believe in.

    Once upon a time they kept crazy uncles like Bernie in the attic. Now they send him to the Senate, where he never fails to embarrass not only himself, but those who were foolish enough to vote for him.

    I can hear the cuckoo singing in the cookaberry tree. (A Golden Helmet of Mambrino) from The Man of La Mancha)

  42. This from the Senate Conservative Fund:


    Loretta LynchLoretta Lynch, President Obama’s liberal nominee for Attorney General, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week and showed why her confirmation should be rejected by the new Republican Senate.

    When asked by U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) if she thought the president’s executive amnesty was “legal and constitutional,” Lynch said that she did. Lynch also told Sessions that she believes illegal aliens have a “right” to work in the United States, just as much as any American citizen.

    Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Lynch to identify the limits of executive power regarding unilateral amnesty, the investigation of illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, and the use of drones on American citizens. Each time, Lynch refused to identify any limits on the president’s power.

    After the confirmation hearing, Cruz said that it is “profoundly dangerous to have an attorney general, who by her own testimony is prepared to rubber stamp unconstitutional conduct by the president.”

  43. jeswezey
    January 31, 2015 at 4:33 am
    So . . .

    For the sixth time . . .

    What is your reaction to the Thomas Sowell videos?

    You asked them to find them for you and I did.

  44. Hold a party for Obola supporters that have lost their minds over his perceived sainthood – I wouldn’t waste my money or my time even considering it. So Jes, just a hint, don’t try to bribe me into even talking about this.

    Lost some friends over 2008 election, they like to frame me as a Republican now. Only folks on Big Pink know how ridiculous that statement is. I do agree with the build the damn fence, balance the damn budget, no amnesty…and quit giving away the farm to lazy jerks like Obama, but that doesn’t make me a Rethug.

  45. Shadow, my answer is, No I’m not a republican, I’m not a Democrat, I’m a voter who will vote however the damn hell i choose and agree with what i agree with regardless of party.

  46. what a bunch of manipulating, exploitive, corrupt idiots…this admin and this set of dims are the worst in my lifetime…

    this freaking scam actually forced Americans to give up health plans they had and could afford to be mandated/forced to choose plans they could not afford and took away their personal doctors and hospitals…people were left having to do without health care because they could not afford the O plans and now will be taxed for not obeying what they were mandated/forced to do to add insult to injury…

    I am with Moon…I will vote who I think is doing the right thing…and so far the Dims are disgraceful…Hillary better do a 180′ change when she emerges


    WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act say they worry that the tax-filing season will generate new anger as uninsured consumers learn that they must pay tax penalties and as many people struggle with complex forms needed to justify tax credits they received in 2014 to pay for health insurance. (what a joke)

    The White House has already granted some exemptions and is considering more to avoid a political firestorm. (Supreme Court, I hope you are listening to the people)

    Mark J. Mazur, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said up to six million taxpayers would have to “pay a fee this year because they made a choice not to obtain health care coverage that they could have afforded.”

    But Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer at Vermont Legal Aid, said: “A lot of people do not feel that health insurance plans in the marketplace were affordable to them, even with subsidies. Some went without coverage and will therefore be subject to penalties.”

    The penalties, approaching 1 percent of income for some households, are supposed to be paid with income taxes due April 15. In addition, officials said, many people with subsidized coverage purchased through the new public insurance exchanges will need to repay some of the subsidies because they received more than they were entitled to. (what a scam played on the American people)

    More than 6.5 million people had insurance through the exchanges at some point last year, and 85 percent of them qualified for financial assistance, in the form of tax credits, to lower their premiums. Most people chose to have the subsidies paid in advance, based on their projected income for 2014. If their actual income was higher — because they received a raise or found a new job — they will be entitled to a smaller subsidy and must repay the difference, subject to certain limits.

    ( a complicated, confusing ponzi scheme to steal money from some americans to give to others…and you can bet illegal immigrants will find a way to benefit)

    “If the advanced premium tax credit amount is too high, the taxpayer could have an unwelcome surprise and owe money,” said Nina E. Olson, the national taxpayer advocate at the Internal Revenue Service.

    Many people awarded insurance subsidies for 2014 did not realize that the amount would be reviewed and recalculated at tax time in 2015.

    Consumers are sure to have questions, but cannot expect much help from the tax agency, where officials said customer service had been curtailed because of budget cuts. (isn’t that convenient? they are probably out partying somewhere with their raises or harrassing the tea party)

    The 2015 filing season could be the most difficult in decades, officials said. Ms. Olson said new paperwork resulting from the Affordable Care Act would probably exacerbate problems with customer service, which “has reached unacceptably low levels and is getting worse.” (the O admin is going to leave our country in shambles…)

    “The I.R.S. is unlikely to answer even half the telephone calls it receives,” she added. “Taxpayers who manage to get through are expected to wait on hold for 30 minutes on average and considerably longer at peak times.”

    Timothy S. Jost, an expert on health law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law who supports the Affordable Care Act, said: “It will be very easy to find people who are unhappy with the new tax obligations — people who have to pay a penalty, who have to wait forever to get through to somebody at the I.R.S. or have to pay back a lot of money because of overpayments of premium tax credits.”

    bla, bla, bla…

    this is like forcing people to do something they cannot afford and then stealing money from them as punishment…like those boiler rooms that steal money from people and when they people want an explanation the thieves are no where to be found…

  47. I heard on talk radio that Republicans believe it will be hard to defeat Lynch’s confirmation. Presumably the thinking is that some Republicans are expected to vote for her confirmation. Since she would need 51 votes to be confirmed, it would seem easy enough for them to defeat her if they chased to do so. The problem appears to be that some Repubs seem to be firmly in her corner. In view of her support Obama’s edict relative to illegal immigration. Additionally, she is not known to think too highly of law enforcement officials.

    I guess Holder didn’t do enough damage to suit some Repubs.


    “I believe she’s not only qualified but exceptionally well-qualified and a very good person, to boot,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared from the dais on the second day of Lynch’s confirmation hearing to replace Eric Holder.

    Another committee Republican, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, said later he, too, intended to back Lynch. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he was inclined to do the same.

    That seemed to guarantee Lynch’s approval by the Judiciary Committee in coming weeks, since she needs only two Republican votes on the panel if all Democrats back her. From there, her nomination would move to the full Senate, where she also is likely to win approval.


  48. The Obama-ites are coming to the realization that they HAVE to have a successor who will not expose ALL of the mess that they have created thus far. It doesn’t matter if it is a D or R president. All of this list wrangling, threatening foreign leaders, chest thumping to the Congress is about when Obama is out of office and the horrific mess starts leaking out. While they think it is about post presidency careers and money making but it is also about criminal liability. Who is going to cover their tracks come 2017? I have no doubt Jebbie would but it appears he can’t win many primaries with the public sick of the Bushes. Who in the Republican field would just say it is time to move on and ignore the criminal orgy of 2009 to 2016? And what would Hillary do as president about it? The lists, backstabbing, positioning is about how she would handle it as president. The next president can RUIN a great number of people and in my opinion should. There should be a general clean out of the rats nest but so far all I see is a rat protection racket. Delaying announcing implies Hillary is not going along with it and promising nothing.

  49. There should be a general clean out of the rats nest but so far all I see is a rat protection racket. Delaying announcing implies Hillary is not going along with it and promising nothing.


    Right, Mormaer.

    Nano used to say the Dims would clear the swamp of alligators. Instead, the slithering predators grew larger and more slimy.

  50. Another bullshit article from NYT, ostensibly about the ongoing debate regarding the far left’s attempt to function as word cops in the name of political correctness. What begins as a comment on an article in the New Yorker about liberalism and PC, ends with an attempt to undermine Hillary. The far left will use any lame excuse to slam Hillary, working the most unrelated drivel into a a statement opposing her. It is disgusting to see how liberalism has devolved from representing the compassionate fight for right, to representing whining, unrealistic fight against anything that represents traditional America. It’s bullshit on designer drugs.


  51. Admin, cute pics of the Puppy Bowl. The conservatives are convinced that the far left wants to do away with the NFL and football, in general. I’m not sure if they’re right. I don’t really follow the sport, although I am aware of some of the new research linking head injury and brain trauma to later physical and sensory ailments, even death in some cases.

    I don’t know enough about football or the effort of the far left to get rid of it (if indeed it intends to do so) to express an opinion. However it does appear that if the far left wants government to involve itself with personal safety concerns related to all the activities in which Americans freely choose to participate, government may have time for nothing else.



  52. look at Moochels education history on Wiki. She was a great student and really has the brains.

    Well, wiki is written by regular people, and has been known to be inaccurate due to biases of people contributing. Did wiki cite great grades to justify the “brains” or was it just someone’s interpretation/opinion?

    Have you seen her senior college thesis (it’s online)? I can’t buy her as a great student – not anywhere close.

  53. Some jokes from the Alfalfa Club dinner:


    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had this instant classic, which was the talk of the after-party: “Jeb Bush looks like he’s running for president. So now we know what the Bush family means by ‘no child left behind.’”

    Robert Gates, former Defense secretary, and this year’s Alfalfa president: “When it comes to drones, I do think we need to reduce their number. The 435 we have in the House is enough. …

    “Mike Bloomberg had a tough time as mayor of New York. The city’s soda vendors turned their backs on him. …

    “Washington is the only place where you can see someone walking down Lovers Lane, holding his own hand.”

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), accepting the nomination at the Capital Hilton as the club’s incoming president (a repeat role for him), got a lot of buzz for transcending his stiff image: “My point is, I can lead. Americans simply aren’t impressed by all the old faces — Clinton, Romney, Bush. People are looking for a fresh, exciting face — you know, like me. …

    “I can work with the president. We’re honest with each other. I told him once that I thought he was aloof and condescending. He said, ‘I’m not condescending. I’m just too busy thinking about far more important things than you would understand.’”

  54. “I can work with the president. We’re honest with each other. I told him once that I thought he was aloof and condescending. He said, ‘I’m not condescending. I’m just too busy thinking about far more important things than you would understand.’”

    Nailed it! That’s Barack.

  55. Baracko –
    He said, ‘I’m not condescending. I’m just too busy thinking about far more important things than you would understand.’’

    Like how to sneak out for a smoke when MO has me on a short leash.

    Like how to keep my wife in sleeves.

    Like how to get by looking like I care about the American public now that I don’t have a campaign to run.

    Like how to keep Hillary from making me look like a failure.

  56. Article discusses the split within the Dim party regarding foreign policy. Sen. Menendez and a group of 13 fellow Dims in senate oppose O’s position on Iran, and want to see sanctions imposed on Iran if there is no agreement to limit nuclear program by June. Additionally, a report issued by “eight former foreign policy luminaries” expressed disagreement with O’s position agains providing arms to Ukraine, and call for him change it Among the eight are three former associates of Obama administration. Eight Dim Senators, including Levin and Menendez sponsored legislation calling for arms sales to Ukraine, which passed last month. Obama’s refusal to heed Hillary’s advice to provide support to Syrian rebels is cited as the beginning of the divide within the party over foreign policy.


  57. wbboei January 31, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    For the sixth time . . .

    What is your reaction to the Thomas Sowell videos?

    Excuse me for holding off… or forgetting; but I now have the Sowell interview on YouTube and have reached minute 9.

    It’s very interesting and I go along with what is said so far, but with some criticisms and suggestions.

    Please hold on another day or two. I can see why this debate is important to you, but I’m stewing up a series of posts about the HRC Economic Agenda that I hope everyone will take the time to read. In the meantime, I’m just treading water on the other issues on the blog.

  58. admin January 30, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Republicans rejoice: Mitt Romney not running. Jeb Bush is smiling.

    They’re rejoicing???

    A death wish definitely inhabits Republicans’ minds. Romney was the only candidate worth a little gold, unless Trump steps up. Maybe Gowdy. But in any event, the only one who stood a chance against HRC.

    If they’re rejoicing, they should nail a “death wish” plank in their otherwise vacant platform.

  59. wbboei January 30, 2015 at 11:31 am

    email list … a SHADOW PARTY…. This reeks of George Soros.

    A very good point, 0° agreement. But as moononpluto and I have remarked, HRC doesn’t need that email list and it’s full of vipers anyway. The hell with it.

  60. Shadowfax January 30, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Some of O’s list are corrupt ACORN abusers…some are stolen ID’s of people who have died, many are from other countries.

    Yes indeed, and don’t forget that some of them on that list were not contributors at all, but were rather paid to blog all over the Internet on O’s behalf.

    Word had it that there were 400 such paid bloggers; and they were indeed nasty sons of bitches (yes, all male as far as I could tell). I got slapped down and insulted (even called “racist”) on many sites, in particular that of Taylor Marsh, who eventually blocked me from participation.

    So, as you say on January 30 at 1:26 pm, I think it’s important for HRC to steer clear of this list, because there are at least 400 Trojan Horses on it that mean to do her harm.

  61. Shadowfax January 30, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    Mitt’s obviously been promised something by Jeb Bush……..
    Sec of State? Treasury? VP?
    … some are reporting that Mitt might toss his support to Christie …

    Support of Christie wouldn’t deter Shrub3 from giving Romney the nod for Commerce or Treasury, or even VP, like Obola gave the VP nod to Hillary’s ole friend, Joe.

    Besides, Christie is a loser but is recognized nationally as “bipartisan” ‘cause he shook hands with the pResident, who didn’t know what else to do with his hands: “Place the ball on the tee with the left hand or right hand? — Guess I’ll ask Valerie which looks best…. Oh! — here’s that guy from New Jersey, I’ll just shake hands with him and ask him how much money he wants. Somebody’s sure to tell me what his name is….” Good photo-op for the pResident and for Christie.

  62. Lu4PUMA January 30, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    …the secret of Obozo’s Harvard degree… Moochels… was a great student and really has the brains….

    Spot-on analysis.

    You’re not giving undue credit to Me-Shell either. She really did come from a middle-class African American family with working parent(s). She took advantage of Affirmative Action, but not all those who did so were dimwits like her husband.

  63. To hell with transparency. If reporters felt the need to avail themselves of the restroom facilities at the Dim retreat in Philadelphia, they were escorted by Dim staffers. The good news is there was no mention of the escorts being armed. Lets give those transparent Dims credit where it’s due. Just escorts – not armed escorts. That’s a good thing.


    At retreat, Dem staffers escort reporters to restroom

    By HADAS GOLD | 1/30/15 2:16 PM EST

    Reporters covering the House Democrats’ retreat in Philadelphia this week are having a much different experience than when they’re on their home turf on Capitol Hill.

    Reporters are being escorted to and from the restroom and lobby and are being barred from entering the hotel outside of scheduled events, even if they’ve been invited by a member of Congress.



  64. gonzotx February 1, 2015 at 10:26 am

    No way Hillary is close to a Churchill.

    They both have staying power, times in and out of power, roll with the punches, crossing party lines, and a deserved reputation for doggedly fighting the good fight.

    So HRC-Churchill seems like a good parallel to me… What do you see in Churchill that HRC doesn’t have? The UK accent?

  65. Shadowfax January 31, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    So, from what I gather, all your colleagues are Case 2 — hopeless.

    In that case, freespirit will start the evening off with her Glock and I’ll send her all the knives, hatchets, buckets, tarpaulin for the floor and aprons she needs to make a clean job of it. You can decide between you which of you cooks up the camel-burgers; but then all you have to do is to deliver them to work and invite the others for a second night of “partying”. And so on for the third and fourth night until the “Republican” has had her revenge.

    It’ll save on the cost of the headcheese, and I have just as much repulsion as freespirit from putting it in my shopping cart anyway.

    So, everybody’s happy for the first few days after the election. Then you can still come over for a visit to gay Paris where the jubilance will be over, but you can still find a lot of new friends.

  66. freespirit February 2, 2015 at 9:39 am

    At retreat, Dem staffers escort reporters to restroom

    … calls for “willing suspension of disbelief”!….

  67. Federalist article offers a bit of a reality check and some sound advice to VOX, which claims it has been proven that Islam is not more violent than other religions.

    Beauchamp says:

    If Islam itself were in fact the key cause of Islamist terrorism, you’d expect ordinary Muslims to be more violent than ordinary non-Muslims.

    No, you would not. But if you truly believe all the world’s great religions are equally violent (“intrinsically” speaking) there is social experiment one could undertake to find out. A Vox reporter could walk around Washington DC or Dallas or Atlanta holding a sign that says “Jesus is a myth” and see what happens. And then that reporter could head to Medina or Karachi or Gaza City and do the same thing with a corresponding sign about Islam. Afterwards, let’s compare results.



  68. Foxy! The only response I can think of to that Sun Times article you posted is…. OH SHIT!!

    “WASHINGTON — Though President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle still have two years left in the White House, their foundation has come up with a bold slogan for their next chapter: “Eight years is only the beginning.”’


    What the hell else can he do to screw over us?! Maybe he thinks he’s going to be running a Warren or Biden WH. If so, he’s more delusional than I thought.

  69. Interesting…..is this the tide turning or hinderance.

    Breaking : Fmr Obama Campaign Manager: It’s Hillary’s ‘Turn’ to Be President


    President Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, said today that it was Hillary Clinton’s “turn” to be the next president of the United States:

    “We want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States,” Messina told an MSNBC host. “It’s her turn and her time. I think she would be the right leader for this country moving forward. We’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure she’s the president of the United States.”

  70. Chris Christie is dining with David Cameron at 10 Downing Street tonight…..

    Quite a coup for him actually.

  71. Regardless of what he thinks, he’s a very unpopular President in lame duck status….none of them will get a blind bit of notice…..the sooner that idiot figures that out the better.

    That party takes over in the last 2 years, he’ll be told to shut his trap.

  72. Scott Walker clear GOP frontrunner ’16 with big lead in Drudge Poll. Up big with IA, NH, SC voters; larger margins than any candidate in ’12

    That’ll be fun.

  73. Just like Mother…found face down in the bath tub….poor girl.

    Whitney Houston’s daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown “fighting for her life” & surrounded by family, relatives say

  74. moononpluto
    February 2, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    Scott Walker clear GOP frontrunner ’16 with big lead in Drudge Poll. Up big with IA, NH, SC voters; larger margins than any candidate in ’12

    I was wondering why those people were digging through his garbage can. 😆

  75. I’m not sure which one of Chris Matthews’ personalities was in charge here. Hillary did not make Tingles tingle in 2008. In fact, she had the opposite effect, and this nasty little man spat out some pretty unflattering comments about her. I didn’t watch the video linked at this article. Maybe this statement was just his warm-up before getting down and dirty about Hillary and her daughter – again.

    Chris Matthews praised a potential Hillary Clinton presidency where “she could really rule this country” as a result of a decisive electoral victory.

    “This country needs somebody to get control of it,” Matthews said about a Clinton presidency on the Monday broadcast of his MSNBC show.

    “I think she should go for a 55% victory, 54% victory because then she could bring the House in, she could bring the Senate in and she could really rule this country. This country needs somebody to get control of it,” Matthews told his Hardball audience.


  76. foxyladi14
    February 3, 2015 at 10:30 am
    Dream on!!!! 😆

    A handful of Congressional Republicans have pledged support for an new amendment to the Constitution which would impose term limits on every member of Congress.

    Exactly Foxy! Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, I think it was in 1994 in Newt and the Repubs’ contract with (or for – can’t recall) America. They promised term limits back then too. That was before they decided they really preferred to keep their jobs in DC.

  77. moononpluto February 2, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Breaking : Fmr Obama Campaign Manager: It’s Hillary’s ‘Turn’ to Be President

    Fuck Messina big time.

  78. Wow.
    …”It’s time for Senator Cruz and Senator Sessions, and Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats to stand together with the American people and block the president’s actions,” Boehner told reporters Tuesday morning.
    The peculiarity of Boehner name-checking Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions cannot be overlooked. Both have railed against Boehner and his team, particularly on immigration issues, calling on them to bring more conservative bills to the floor. Sessions helped scuttle a border-security bill Boehner hoped to bring to the House floor last week, holding that it did not do enough to shore up interior enforcement. Cruz, meanwhile, was instrumental in pushing House Republicans to shut down the government in 2013 over demands that any funding legislation block implementation of Obama’s health care law.
    But now the tables have been turned. Boehner’s subtle jab at the two senators betrays an increasing frustration among House Republicans with GOP senators pushing the House to pass legislation they do not have the votes to pass in the Senate. And if, as expected, the Senate cannot pass the House version of the DHS bill, expect House Republicans to blame Senate Republicans, now in the majority, as much as their Democratic counterparts.

    Mitch has something to say too. At The Hill:
    McConnell to Dems: Stand up to Obama on immigration ‘power grab’.

  79. HRC AND HER ECONOMIC AGENDA in five successive posts

    There was a 2007 article by Paul Krugman who expressed astonished admiration for the scope of HRC’s understanding of economic theory and history ranging from FDR up to that day (2007-8).

    There is no reason to believe HRC has forgotten her theory and history. On the contrary, there is every cause to believe that she has strengthened and broadened her understanding with deeper knowledge of the globalized economy that the United States has done everything to encourage, and from which it can no longer recoil, and in which she played a helpful role both as Senator and as Secretary of State.

    So, in order to understand her economic agenda and the importance of its principles and objectives, we first have to bring ourselves up to snuff.

    This is the “Table of Contents” of the five posts. Not all of them are intended for everyone; but number (5) is:

    (1) I start with a succinct essay on economic theory and its development into two “opposing” Demand- and Supply-side theories (1600 words).

    (2) The history of government Demand-side solutions is then traced out from FDR to Carter, with the theoretical Supply-side answers to the quandary of the business cycles and government presence in the economy (800 words).

    (3) Then I describe the Supply-side solutions to the business cycle and economic growth, as they were brought to DC and applied under Reagan’s baton, up to the swearing-in of WJC (the Third Way), plus some remarks about the Republicans’ Religious Mantra (2100 words in all).

    (4) Rather than go straight into the Clintons’ Third Way, I follow (3) with a discussion of Obama’s version of the “Third Way” and a short list of items that the Clintons can actually praise about his policies. (800 words)

    (5) Finally, the Clinton Economic Agenda, detailing the Third Way approach and items that HRC will definitely or most likely place on her agenda (4400 words).

    The last post is a blockbuster, I know, at 4400 words. But all the other posts lead up to it, and it’s the reason I bothered to write all this preliminary shit at all:

    The first three posts are overkill on the economics behind the statement “Don’t let anybody tell you businesses create jobs…”

    The fourth is an attempt at finding something good the Clintons can say about Obama’s “trickle-up” economics, because that seems to be worrying people who want HRC to distance herself from Obola.

    But the last post will show that there is enough in HRC’s economic agenda to distance her far from Obola, and even farther from the Republicans.

    So please, if you scroll by all of the first four posts, please read the last one and comment.

  80. POST ONE:

    Economic theory: What were Keynes and Friedman talking about? Opposites?

    The founder of modern economics was J.M. Keynes. A mathematician by trade, it was natural for him to generate the now-indispensable concept of Supply and Demand, expressed as two curves on a graph where the “X” axis stands for Quantity Q produced, and the “Y” axis represents Price P of the product or service.

    The point where the Supply and Demand curves intersect is an “equilibrium” point where producers agree to produce and consumers agree to buy a given product at a given price in a given month.

    Multiplying P times Q at this “equilibrium” point, we get P x Q = $ I, where I is the company’s Income or, on the national scale of all businesses and consumers, the “Gross Domestic Product”, “GDP”, which is a statement of income, not of product.

    The above is a no-brainer for anyone who has taken the first week of Economics 101. The theory is writ in stone and unassailable, because it is simply a matter of defining the parameters of simple equations. As a result, no one has ever questioned it.

    In week 2, a little more understanding of mathematics is needed. We have to understand the “slope” of the S and D curves. The theoretical D curve is seen to slope downward from left to right and the S curve slopes upward from left to right.

    From logical analysis, it can be seen that these are not straight lines but indeed curves, assumed to be concave upward for purposes of discussion, and that the “slope” is theoretically expressed as the “derivative” of the S or D equations at any given point.

    (BTW, “derivative” is taken in its mathematical sense, as the slope of a curve at a given point, and has nothing to do with the “Derivatives” now sold on securities exchanges.)

    From week 3 onward, we get into discussions of differently shaped curves in different markets, some of the hairier ones like the financial markets being left for later specialized courses or even grad school.

    The most important point of week 3, though, is the idea of “elasticity”. What is elasticity?

    Since businesses are the producers who have to determine both P and Q before they can produce the goods, they have to have an ”intuitive” idea of the D curve, and ask themselves, “If I put more widgets on the market at a lower price, will I earn more, at P(—) x Q(+) = I(+)? Or will I earn less at P(—) x Q(+) = I(—)?”

    If they figure they can earn more at the lower price, it is because they intuit that the D curve is “elastic”, that is, closer to horizontal than to vertical. Otherwise, if they reduce their price, they will lose income I.

    These are intuitive calculations that Keynesian economists referred to as “business sense” or “intuition”, because nobody could really tell what absolute Demand was, no less how elastic it was. Keynes therefore posited that Demand drives the economy, or that Demand was the control variable, in mathematical terms.

    Symmetrically, the same businessman who is struggling to determine the elasticity of Demand for his own products has to buy input goods and services in order to manufacture those products.

    In that position, the businessman himself constitutes the Demand curve for the input goods:

    He knows the catalog prices of various suppliers for their capital goods and input resources. He can shop around and find ways to produce his products at lower cost. And then he can turn around and face the Demand curve for his own products, offering lower-cost products than his competitors, whatever the level or elasticity of that Demand.

    Now, all of the above is writ in stone. Keynes’ grunt theory has been questioned time and again, but only for instructional purposes in the classroom. It cannot be overthrown, because it is simply a matter of definitions of parameters, the use of those parameters in simple equations, plus a few common-sense conclusions.

    Keynes was not overthrown by Friedman either: Even with Friedman, the businessman controls production, and Demand is the control parameter that drives the economy.

    ”Supply-side” economics

    What differed from Keynes when Friedman and his “Chicago School” came charging in, is that the business/economic landscape had changed dramatically in the 40-50 years since Keynes. By the 1970s, the Chicago School found that:

    (1) A lot of data had been collected, systematically, along with statistical methods for analyzing the data, so that the level and elasticity of Demand could be determined with enough precision for making intelligent, as opposed to intuitive, decisions.

    (2) By that time also, a booming advertising business had come into being, backed up by sharp marketing methods, giving businesses the opportunity to shape Demand to their liking. Marketing and advertising had become one of the companies’ operating expenses, as it still is today.

    Friedman’s conclusion from this was that the businessman not only controls the Supply-side, as before; but now largely controls his Demand curve, too.

    Therefore, the Supplier is the one to be wooed and pampered by government policy.

    This calls for a brief survey of what “government policy” had been since FDR (advised by Keynes) and where it still stood in the 1970s, before Reagan brought “Supply-side” economics to DC. — Next post.

  81. POST TWO

    Brief overview of government economic policy from FDR to Carter

    In order to pull the US out of the Great Depression, and on the basis of his “Demand-side economics”, Keynes advised FDR to increase the money supply by lowering interest rates (the government’s “monetary arm”) and by large-scale deficit spending (the government’s “fiscal arm”).

    By increasing the money supply thusly, the government would put money in people’s pockets and thereby spur Demand, pulling the economy out of the doldrums.

    It didn’t matter to Keynes what the money was spent on. We have the image of workers digging a trench one week and other workers filling it up again the following week. Whether that image was real or not, that was indeed the idea: “Do anything you want,” Keynes was saying, “but just do it!”

    And as we know, the approach succeeded.

    So, for about 40 years after the Great Depression, the US government applied this concept of “Demand-Side” economics rote, varying federal expenditures (fiscal arm) to put money in people’s pockets and thereby spur demand, to keep the money moving, and applied the fiscal arm in the reverse direction as well, removing money from the economic bloodstream by increasing taxes (fiscal arm) and letting unemployment take its toll, with the corresponding transfer payments to the indigent (welfare) that had been invented during the Depression.

    The monetary arm was also used; but this was more or less left to the discretion of the Federal Reserve.

    This general policy had varying success, though, because the economy still suffered “business cycles” ranging between a sluggish 2% growth of GDP or less, with high unemployment, to 7% or more, called an “overheated” economy. An overheated economy began spinning out of control with inflation due to the “wage-price push” — that is, wage increases increased business’s expenses, and as a result, businesses had to hike their prices “artificially” regardless of Demand.

    With their increased wages, households could buy the higher-priced goods and services; but the overall effect was inflation: Money was worth less. People would then buy less, leaving industries holding the bag and piling up their unsold goods in expensive warehouses, which economists call “idle investment or savings” or “stock replenishment” at best (i.e. at zero growth). When a business is in Stock Replenishment mode, it is close to collapse.

    At that point, it wasn’t enough just to reduce federal expenditures; and it was verboten to cut wages. With the economy spinning out of control, the only solution was to stop federal spending, wait for the bubble to burst, and then to begin all over again with a year of low or even negative growth, and the corresponding deflation.

    In a nutshell, that was the business cycle quandary when the Chicago school arrived to the rescue in Reagan’s luggage.

    Keynes de-throned?

    Supply-side, for the reasons stated above, recommended forgetting about Demand altogether, and concentrating on the behavior of the “Suppliers” and those who “drove” them, i.e., the Investors.

    The “Suppliers” were businesses, small and large.

    “Investors” were bankers, Wall Street, the wealthy and a gaggle of people of more modest wealth.

    The axiomatic passwords of Supply-side economics were:

    “Businesses create jobs” and “the wealthy invest in businesses”.

    Therefore, the wealthy and corporations should be “allowed” to do what they want to do most, which is to create wealth and jobs for everybody by “letting” investors invest in corporations so corporations can create jobs, thereby putting money in people’s pockets so they can buy the companies’ products.

    The mainspring of this virtuous spiral leading to earthly paradise was:

    (1) Cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, to let them do their jobs.

    As a corollary axiom, the government should “let” corporations produce what they want and stop regulating it all the time, thereby “letting” the economy be “free” and show its stuff against the Communist “command economy”. This axiom was:

    (2) Government should de-regulate, period.

    So, there was a political aspect to Supply-side too: We wanted to show the Soviets and the world how a “free” economy with “free” corporations and “free” consumers (who were actually “captivated” by the Supplier’s marketing ploys and advertising) does more for the people than a “command economy”, where everybody is told what to do and is supposed to read Pravda to know what they want.

    The final axiom was is a consequence drawn from the first two:

    (3) Government could control business cycles by its monetary arm alone, that is, by varying the interest rates or, in a worst-case scenario, printing money.

    The effect of all this would be smaller and smaller government with lower and lower government taxation and spending, and less and less regulation, leading to an anarchist’s paradise where the government would be limited to the Federal Reserve (which is private) and there would be no need for transfer payments (welfare) because everybody would be employed and independently rich by themselves.


    THE REPUBLICANS — The Rise and Fall of Supply-side economics

    Reagan brought Supply-side economics to DC from California, where he should have left it.

    When competing with Reagan, Shrub1 called it “voo-doo economics”, others called it “Reaganomics” and its dwindling gaggle of defenders eventually called it “trickle-down economics”.

    In return, the Republicans coined the slogan “Tax & Spend Liberals” to advertise what they thought of the Democrats’ approach, i.e., the old reliance on the fiscal arm of government.

    (1) De-regulation, though begun under Jimmy Carter, had disastrous effects on the airline and aircraft construction industries already, but is a tenet of the Republican Economic Religion still today.

    That is, the slogan “de-regulate” rhymes with “less government control” in voters’ minds, and always brings in the votes of voters who want more “freedom” (that is, “less law”). This is the “Libertarian” approach in their campaigns.

    To be fair, Romney said in 2012 the “the markets need regulation”, but that may be part of the reason that he was not enthusiastically supported by the Republican Establishment or its base.

    Otherwise “De-regulation” and “over-regulation” are standard Republican catchphrases. We are supposed to liberate ourselves and be “free” at last by reducing regulations.

    (2) Flash back to Reagan, the 1980’s also correspond to the rise of the personal computer.

    The advent of the personal computer was not related to Supply-side economics or Reagan’s application of it. It was due mainly to the outcome of a trust-busting lawsuit brought against IBM by the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who were soon to become two of the richest men in the world, and who indeed benefited from the tax cuts Reagan introduced for corporations and the wealthy, but only on the output end.

    Those were the days before interlinked computers with sophisticated software shrank the world far more than any air travel enthusiast could ever have dreamed, flattening out managerial pyramids in national and multinational corporations, and demanding new skills for fewer employees, thereby steepening the income distribution curve. That world was to come in the early 1990s.

    In the 1980’s, on the contrary, computers were a fast-growing business with growing employment and growing demand for products and services. Microsoft, Hewlett Packard and Apple were the new GM, Chrysler and Ford.

    This is one big reason why the US GDP numbers looked good for a while under Reagan. It was only in the late eighties and early nineties that people began to feel the squeeze I described above.

    (3) During all this time, the wealthy found other much less productive ways to “invest”. The Decade of Greed spurred by Reagan’s tax cuts and de-regulation brought the rise of corporate raiders, who were fed by a new high-yield input called “junk bonds” — instruments conceived by Michael Milken, who was eventually indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in an insider trading suit, sentenced to 10 years, and fined $600 million.

    It was the decade when the word “millionaire” fell into disuse and people were only rich if they were “billionaires.” Nowadays, “millionaires” are part of the Middle Class.

    The corporate raiders, for their part, should have been tried for crimes against humanity:

    They would take over existing companies and conglomerates by “leveraged buyout”, financed by the junk bonds; then perform a magic mix of split-ups and mergers, throwing thousands of “deadwood” workers out of work, including the managers; and then sell off the “streamlined” result at prices that would pay up to 15% or more on the junk bonds, plus $1 or $2 billion for the raider himself.

    The corporate raider who undergoes a change of heart under the influence of a hooker is portrayed sympathetically in “Pretty Woman” (1989, not-so-incidentally).

    This was what the wealthy “invested” in, in the 1980’s. Computers were a sideline.

    Another spur to the economy in the early and mid-80’s was the Star Wars hoax. Tens of billions of dollars were allocated for research on this ridiculous “space shield”, and were quietly “re-budgeted” to other pet projects.

    So, the many billions actually did get into people’s pockets and sustain Demand for a while, though only insiders knew what the money was originally intended for. It was Reagan’s way of justifying deficit spending in a Supply-side context, for a “noble” political/military cause against the “Axis of Evil”.

    (4) Reducing corporate income tax did not give companies more money to invest in themselves, because money used for self-investment is never taxed anyway, no matter what economic theory you hold, in no matter what country in the world.

    Reducing corporate income tax just made more money available to corporations to distribute as dividends to their shareholders and executives.

    The only benefit to reducing corporate income tax is that it reduces a corporation’s incentive to pack up and move overseas where the taxes are lower.

    You might associate such behavior as “shipping jobs overseas”; but that is another matter entirely. In fact, no company I know of (other than Halliburton) has ever expatriated its head office from the US and moved abroad to a tax haven because of high corporate taxes at home.

    Companies “ship jobs overseas” because resources — mainly human, but not only — are cheaper or more available overseas, or because Demand is higher there. This occurs even more commonly in a Supply-side economy than in a Demand-side economy.

    Bottom line on the Supply-side experiment:

    Historically, the global GDP numbers through the 80’s looked OK for a long while in this “Supply-side” economy, because Demand was sustained. But on the road to the early 1990’s, when Demand began to slump, the people clinging to Supply-side began to justify Supply-side economics under the code word “trickle-down economics”.

    The idea of “trickle-down” was, the rich would get richer, yes; but their spending would increase too, and they would buy products and services from the unwashed masses, thereby putting money in the pockets of those who were getting poorer and poorer, and Demand would be sustained.

    Now, I have referred before to the axioms and mantras of Supply-side economics as “The Republican Religion”. I say this because, despite the hard proof we have that Supply-side policies are a load of bullshit, all the Republicans I’ve ever heard— with the exception of Romney and probably Trump — are still spewing this nonsense en bloc as if it were God’s Truth and part of some immutable path to greatness for America, the only alternative to it being the despicable “Tax & Spend Liberals”.

    These Republicans are living in the 1980’s, in the glorious shadow of their Transformative President Ronald Reagan.

    Reagan was transformative, all right; but in ways the Republicans simply don’t understand. God save America if they actually think it would be good to go through that misery again, and vote them back into the White House.

    Even Rubio, with his impeccable gene pool, his youth and obvious linguistic abilities, still regurgitates this swill and revels in the glory of Reagan, while claiming that he has “21st century” ideas — as opposed to the ideas of HRC, which are necessarily old-fashioned because she spent more of her life in the 20th century than Rubio has spent in all his days put together.

    So, there is nothing the country can hope for, economically speaking, by electing a Republican president in 2016. Unless it’s Romney.

    [An aside: The backroom Marxists in Moscow had already begun reading their Keynes by the time Reagan came along, and were trying to institute a Demand economy. It was a long hard slog that they and their heirs eventually won; but they were never tempted by the teachings of the Chicago school. They left Supply-side economics to the US — and to the US alone — because Supply-side was never adopted by any other economic power on the planet.]

    Next post: Obama and the Clintons


    The Economics of the Democrats: OBAMA and the CLINTONS

    Briefly and simply stated, the Democrats have never believed in Supply-side economics, or in the policies stemming from it. This is what distinguishes them starkly from the Republicans.

    But deciding between Reps and Dems is not so simple as deciding between Keynes, who still reigns supreme, and Friedman, whose theories are now deprecated. It must be said that “trickle-down” policies must be avoided at all political costs; but also, we need policies other than the awkward fiscal-arm policies used from FDR to Carter, because those policies didn’t work all that well either.

    On the face of it, Obama — or rather his advisers — follow the old school of federal economic policy.

    In the dire situation following September 2008, economists “went Keynesian” and called for a Stimulus to put money in people’s pockets and sustain demand on Main Street, to nurse the country through a “U-shaped recovery”.

    At that time, the Republican “hands-off-the-economy” approach was to simply “let” the economy collapse and then “let” companies start off from scratch again, in a “V-shaped recovery” scenario. (This wasn’t even Supply-side; it was “laisser-faire”, straight out of the 19th century!)

    Obama’s advisers claimed that such inaction would not produce a “V-shaped” recovery but an “L-shaped” Depression greater and longer than that of the 1930s, because companies would not start producing again without a perceived Demand. Main Street would be penniless again, and there would be no way for Main Street to buy anything at all, until somebody put money in Main Street’s pockets.

    There was no way around this reasoning. The Republicans were simply wrong. Nine out of 10 economists sided with the Democrats and the 10th didn’t have anything useful to say. Fortunately for the country, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority and pushed the Stimulus through.

    Despite the scams and the waste of it, it is evident that the Stimulus did save the country from imminent collapse; and after two quarters of negative growth, we were in the black again. It was the work of Obama’s advisers, not Obama himself; but it was on his watch and the Clintons can give him credit for saving the country from another Great Depression.

    Since then, it is primarily by deficit spending that Obama has sustained demand, in the vein of FDR’s original programs — again, the image of workers digging trenches and filling them up again, or simple transfer payments, taking tax money and putting “Obama bucks” in the pockets of the poor.

    On the matter of interest rates, the Fed has kept them close to zero all through the Obama years, which follows the thinking of the Chicago school, i.e., that business cycles can be controlled by varying the interest rates, as more or less a direct function of growth.

    However, as former Reagan economic adviser David Stockman now claims: The “Fed — 12 people sitting there and thinking that interest rates are some magic elixir that will cause this very troubled and difficult economy to revive…” says it all about the effect of the governments “monetary arm”.

    So, something more than deficit spending, tax cuts and low interest rates are needed to kick start the economy and solidify it in the medium and long terms.

    Obama can be seen as a kind of “Third Way” politician, if you wish, combining Demand-side and Supply-side tools for the betterment of the economy.

    But there is no way in any alternate universe that the “Third Way” Clintons are going to support this dead-end approach much longer.

    Even on the matter of the Stimulus, while praising it and anticipating the upcoming kick-start of green industries, WJC characterized the deficit spending of the Stimulus (on the Jon Stewart show in 2010) as “treading water”.

    Would the Captain of the Titanic have gained much credit in history by advising those who couldn’t fit into the lifeboats to “tread water” till the Carpathia arrived?

    However, they can very well hand Obama a few slices of headcheese for his efforts.

    That might also give his wife the notion that our children should be fed this low-cal, high-protein chow, thereby keeping her occupied for the next two years trying to explain to the kids that it is actually edible. Who knows? Maybe “special needs” children might take to it?

    Anyway, there may be other things Obama has “done” too, though I’m unaware of them. I do remember, for example, that he wanted to stimulate the green industry when he started out, and hired the czar Van Jones to oversee it. That was a smart move.

    But Jones was derided as a former communist and run out of town. To my knowledge, no competent person has replaced him; and today, the green industry is dominated not by the US but by Germany. The green industry was thus a non-starter for political, not economic, reasons; but the effects of its failure are economic.

    And Germany, nowadays, is doing a land-office business in the green industry. Offshore wind power alone is a major component of Germany’s success model, and Germany has the second-highest growth rate in the world — second only to China’s — and sports a GDP nearing that of Japan’s, a developed country twice its size by population.

    This reference to the German success story is the steppingstone into the Clinton agenda. Next post.

  84. POST FIVE — please don’t skip


    Though I have not heard HRC’s stump speech yet, the Clintons have explicitly stated, over the years and up until recently, some economic options they would follow.

    The following is a list of these statements and my conclusions from them, fueled by what I have witnessed of the duo’s actions in the past, including when WJC was considered to be the “Third Way” president.

    WJC has said that he spends at least an hour a day reading and thinking about ways to get the economy up and running again. He has also explicitly said he doesn’t think spending or taxes should be cut until we get the economy up and running again.

    There is no surviving ice cube from hell that can tell me WJC has not discussed his own economic agenda with HRC. They may be “independent” in politics, image and strategy, but not on economic issues. That’s why I call this “The Clinton Economic Agenda.”

    Now, the fundamental objectives of this Agenda are to:

    (1) revive Demand for US products

    (2) organize new industries to meet Demands that already exist, or opportunities can be perceived.

    On the way to those two goals, remember what HRC said right off the bat in 2009 when the sovereign debt was rising higher than it had been after Dubya. She said, “The national debt is becoming a national security problem. It is limiting our ability to act in cases where that may be desirable.” So HRC’s underlying principle is to:

    (3) curb the deficit spending and bring down the debt.

    Also, keep in mind heretofore that HRC described Dubya’s economic policies as “trickle-down without the trickle,” and could very well describe Obama’s in wbboei’s words as “trickle-up” economics. She’s no priestess of Supply-side economics….

    And also keep in mind that HRC was the first to speak of the Middle Class in the national debate. I don’t remember ever having heard anyone talk about the plight of the Middle Class prior to 2007. Before then, the Democratic mantra was all about the poor and downtrodden and victims of racism.

    Nowadays, “Middle Class” is on everyone’s lips — even Romney’s in 2012.

    For his part, Obama talks about it too, i.e., whenever it comes across his TelePrompter screen. If only he knew what it meant!!

    So here goes with the Agenda:


    (A) Minimum wage hike — perhaps as much as 50%, to take some of the $1.6 trillion that US companies have stockpiled, and move it from the “reserve” accounts where it is idle into the “payroll expense” account, where it will serve a purpose and find its way into the pockets of Main Street, giving Main Street the purchasing power to buy more products, thus increasing Demand.

    About this:

    (i) Companies don’t have to be micro-managed to do this. From their standpoint, it is good business sense to move idle money from one account into another where it is put to use.

    (ii) A wage hike also calls for no deficit spending by the government. Spending can actually be cut.

    (iii) It’s not just the bottom rung of the economic ladder that is affected by the minimum wage hike, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rungs. The Middle Class will thus become an active component of the economy again.

    (iv) It’s money in the pockets of working people, not the unemployed. It therefore rewards work, enhancing the value of work.

    (v) It is therefore not an “entitlement“, a transfer payment rewarding people just for existing. And it calls for no bureaucracy to check people’s qualifications or distribute stamps and such.

    (vi) If I’m not mistaken, the minimum wage hasn’t been increased for more than 20 years. Time for a raise. ‘Nuf said.

    The Challenge

    HRC won’t face any opposition on this count from Democrats; but the Republicans are going to stonewall this wage hike proposal.

    It’s going to test HRC’s negotiating powers and across-the-aisle manner, facing a Republican Congress, right off the bat. Why “right off the bat”? Because she has to kick-start the economy before she can do anything else. It’s the first thing on the agenda.

    Why will Republicans oppose it? Because it’s a violation of several of their Ten Commandments.

    First Commandment: “Thou shalt not burden our corporations with unnecessary expenses.” They are already beleaguered with high taxes. The poor corporations will go bankrupt with only $1.6 trillion sitting in their reserve accounts!

    Second Commandment: “Thou shalt not encourage the Wage-Price Push Demon.” Or the labor unions, for that matter.

    Third Commandment: “Thou shalt not tell our corporations what to do with their money.” No state-run enterprises! GM is enough! “Let” American enterprises be “free” to create all those jobs they way they want to create them!

    There are adequate arguments to refute these Commandments, but HRC is going to have her hands full finding enough reasonable Supply-side apostates among the Republicans.

    (B) Open export channels for US companies

    This is something HRC has been doing since 2001, as Senator, and then as Secretary of State for 4 years. It involves taking the case for individual companies overseas, to places like China, India or Russia, and personally

    . pressing for the reduction/abolition of excise or customs duties on the company’s wares, or

    . defending US companies against unfair competitive practices or regulations, and/or

    . traveling with representatives of companies who promote those wares or services, to sign contracts with the appropriate foreign entities, governmental or private.

    This works miracles for the companies who ask for this help; and of course they contribute to HRC’s PAC or campaigns in return. So maybe it looks like incipient corruption; but HRC has actually carbon-copied this practice from the likes of French, Dutch and now German leaders who do exactly the same thing.

    In any event, opening export channels for US companies enhances the Demand for US products and services abroad, and thus the general Demand for US goods.

    The Challenge

    There is no challenge, really. Nobody will try to stop her. She just has to go ahead and do it the way she did for 12 years running.

    What she might do to step up this effort is to get her Secretaries of Commerce and State to join in an effort perhaps coordinated by the Small Business Administration or the Treasury Secretary, and to put the bug in the ears of other Senators, both Republican and Democrat, to do their own thing in this regard.

    * * * * * * *
    So much for kick-starting the economy by increasing Demand.

    The next step in HRC’s plan is to organize new industries, face new demands or take up perceived opportunities. The three industries I can clearly identify in the Clinton Agenda are the Green Industries (see “C” below); what is termed “Industry 4.0” (see “D”), both of which will be financed by new financing methods (see “E”); and then perhaps to spark a new Space Race (see “F”), which did so much for the economy of the 1960s when HRC was a teenager.

    (C) Green industries

    Having foregone solar power, but also nuclear, the Germans are now into Wind Power big time. A single company — Siemens — landed contracts for €300 billion worldwide last year, and that’s just for offshore Wind. The market is so lucrative that the conglomerate Siemens is selling off large sectors of its businesses to concentrate on “Energy”, which in its case means Wind Power. Onshore Wind has competition from the French, Danish and Dutch.

    In any event, the US is non-existent in the Wind Power market, except as customer — the Wind Farms being built in the US are German exports. So, there is an opportunity for US industries to take up here.

    The largest Wind Power market in the US stretches in a very broad belt running down the Midwest from Canada to the Mexican border. It’s immense. Are we going to ask the Germans to build the Wind Farms for us?

    Then — it might not sound like it — but “Biofuels” are also a green industry. This means thinning out overpopulated forests and pruning the remaining trees and undergrowth, and using the wood chips to fire electric power plants and urban heating systems.

    This is called “green” because the forests are spruced up (intending no pun) and protected naturally against forest fires, so they in fact produce more and better wood in the end. It also generates jobs, both in the forests, and saves jobs at the power plant.

    Recycled wood and wood products also go into the mix, and the entire Recycling industry (which includes household garbage) saves money and resources and creates jobs.

    The market for Biofuels? There are forests running all through Appalachia that could provide even more energy and jobs than coal does, at lower cost and with more and better jobs. I know some of the Appalachian “rednecks”: They’re not stupid at all. You can reason with them and show them a way, and America will be better off for the effort.

    Next “green” item: Energy performance

    This is another sector that is taking off in Europe, and WJC said on Jon Stewart’s show a long time ago that he saw ways it could be introduced beneficially in the US.

    It means, generally, assessing the energy characteristics mainly of industrial machinery, automobile vehicles and buildings, comparing the characteristics of those items, then establishing standards by which they can be compared, with the object of increasing the energy efficiency of all these things over time.

    The above is the government’s role. The money needed to research the energy efficiency improvements and implement them is discussed below in (E).

    In the particular case of building insulation, WJC proposed financing the improvements with the energy savings resulting from them. That would nonetheless mean that a financier would have to finance the changes in some conventional manner; but that’s the role of banks. So banks have business waiting for them too.

    Concerning pollution, for example from automobile traffic, solutions are being generated today dddd

    The Challenge

    I know the Clintons to be fervent believers in Anthropogenic Climate Change; but in my opinion, they should avoid basing the above planks of their platform on Climate Change, because there will be a lot of opposition to it. For example, my reaction (as a non-believer) to any such talk would be of the kind, ”Cut the bullshit and just state what you want” — and that’s from someone who supports both the Clinton and these planks in their platform!

    I intuit that there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way I do about the umbrella issue of Climate Change, so my suggestion is: Don’t even the mention of it.

    (D) Industry 4.0

    Industry 4.0 is also known as the “digital factory”. The goal is to create heavy and light industries controlled by versatile robots controlled by computer, where human intervention consists in setting the parameters and pressing “GO”.

    The economic goal is to create new products (research, see E below) and then produce them with better quality and at lower cost than the products of today. The “savings” are thus not a loss of GDP but an improvement of cost effectiveness, making better products available at lower prices and therefore leaving money in people’s pockets to buy other products = increased Demand.

    This calls for new machinery, new robots, and new software. All of this has to be designed and manufactured, which calls for investment (see E below); and the very purchase of it by the manufacturers calls for further investment (see E also).

    The Challenge

    For whatever role the government has to play in spawning Industry 4.0 — essentially an organizational role, but perhaps some projects reminiscent of the space race — HRC will probably not face any material political opposition.

    Moreover, the Germans — who, once again, are leading the charge toward Industry 4.0 — are doing it without any government organization at all. Merkel’s policy is “hands off the economy”; but fortunately, the famed German heavy industry has a lot of smart people at the helm. But we’ve got to catch up to them, and the only way I see US industry doing this is by HRC’s organizational prowess.

    (E) Finance

    The machines, robots and software for Industry 4.0 will have to be updated constantly, and industrial machinery is expensive to begin with. And designing new products takes money too — engineers take home hefty paychecks.

    To finance the design of new products, there is such a thing as research tax credits. To get a research tax credit, the company declares how much it spends on research; and this sum, in addition to being written off under operating expenses (where it is not taxed anyway), is also subtracted from the amount the company owes in corporate income tax.

    This is a significant incentive for companies to invest in research.

    Heavy machinery and sophisticated items like robots are needed for Industry 4.0, but also in other fields like medicine: new PET or moving-image scanners, IRM, operating room facilities, power equipment and the like.

    These are big items in any company’s or hospital’s budget, but now heavy machinery manufacturers are offering other ways of financing these items, such as rental and lease-purchase.

    Using rental or lease-purchase, companies can acquire state-of-the-art equipment on the cheap, without buying them, and “discard” them every 2 or 3 years for a newer model.

    Rental and lease-purchase have existed for a long time, but (1) they always require a third party financier who actually pays full price for the equipment, and that third party is never a bank or ordinary lending institution — these are specialized entities who do only this; and (2) acquiring companies like to own what they operate.

    Lastly, remember one of HRC’s battle cries in 2007:

    “The Oil Industry has just announced the biggest profits in the history of the world! I want to take those profits and use them to create a new green industry!”

    Using the phrase “take those profits” was extremely unfortunate for HRC. The right-wing media latched onto the sound bite and accused her of… yes, Socialism, Mon Dieu!! — Too much gummint already! and so forth.

    But there are legal ways of “taking” oil profits and using them for a specific purpose. For example, the original taxes on gasoline in the 1950’s were directed into the construction of an infrastructure (for automobile traffic) that was the admiration of the world, but which is unfortunately falling into ruin today.

    The same can be done for green industries. In fact, oil suppliers in the EU are already investing in green industries on their own, because it’s a lucrative business that might supplant oil.

    The Challenge

    I don’t think there’s any challenge to meet on the political horizon, except if HRC proposes an oil industry income tax surcharge, for example, which would be one way of “taking” oil profits directly.

    But once again, I think HRC has the leadership skills to get an oil profit surcharge passed; and as for the other financing ideas, it’s just a matter of cajoling private enterprise from the bully pulpit of the Oval Office, without having to make Congress understand what it’s all about.

    (F) The Space Race again; but this time, everybody wins

    This is big stuff, believe me. It takes sizable investment; but can reap immense rewards, economically, technologically, scientifically, and in living conditions for all earthlings and, if properly conceived, it could lead to inter-galactic space travel before the 21st is out. We could take the “Millennium of the Woman” to the Stars!

    Please hear:

    In 2007, HRC said she wanted to be a president who would set goals for America again, harking back to JFK’s goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out.

    And also remember, Hillary D. Rodham wanted to be an astronaut, and surely has not forgotten the thrill of the Space Race — but also the economic boom it brought along with significant technological fallout that led to the world of today’s personal computers.

    I don’t know what HRC’s idea of a new space venture would be; but I know this aerospace field pretty well, for having worked in it for 13 years, and I don’t think something like a manned mission to Mars or a permanent colony, which Shrub2 and Obama have both called for, is the stuff of dreams, or not just yet.

    What I would suggest, rather than a manned Mars mission, is to plant a stereoscopic observatory at the north and south poles of the Moon, to observe the Earth, but also the Sun and all the other bodies of the Solar System, in visible, infrared and all other wavelengths of interest.

    Such stereoscopic observatories would yield, literally, in-depth observation of all these bodies, and send out a plentiful, continuous data stream over a long period of time, for analysis by scientists, and to the joy of kiddies like me.

    These observatories would also be equipped with gravitational wave detectors in the low-G, zero-vibe lunar environment, analyzing the G waves not just from the Earth and Sun, but especially from supernovas, dual stars revolving around each other, and the core of the Milky Way.

    Observing the Milky Way core would give us insight into the existence and characteristics of the Black Hole that is supposedly located there, and would also enlighten us as to the nature of Gravity itself — a “phenomenon” that Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to figure out.

    Imagine what we earthlings could do if we could master and use Gravity at will…. This is science fiction stuff, yeah; but they make movies about it because all we really have to do right now is to collect the data, analyze it and understand it. Thereafter, science fiction becomes grist for real-life stories and documentaries.

    And even short of deep space travel, think of how fine a science weather forecasting will become — real time in-depth coverage precise to the minute, stretching out weeks in advance….

    Or climate change data….

    Or the search for mineral resources, including beneath the Earth’s crust….

    Or tracking the movements of magma hot spots under the crust….

    Or predicting earthquakes and tsunamis due to stress concentrations building up at the surface….

    I would wear out my keyboard and my own energy reserves just trying to list the benefits — not just the economic ones, but all the rest too.

    Now, the Hubble Telescope is fine. Pictures from Hubble have thrilled the kiddies for the last 20 years or so, and we have found some unsuspected objects in deep space. Communications, TV and military satellites are fine too.

    But, to map out a new space venture that will mobilize the country and world for decades to come, I can’t think of anything better than shooting for an objective within our proven reach — one that will bring us earthlings massive economic and scientific rewards for generations to come, and also electrify the kiddies and me just with the pictures.

    The Challenge

    This isn’t a partisan issue to be pushed through Congress, really; it’s worldwide.

    A Stereoscopic Lunar Observatory would fire the imagination, open the pocketbooks and engage the efforts of the EU aerospace community within a month. The EU owns and operates the world’s most reliable launch vehicle, capable of throwing a 25-ton payload into geostationary orbit, and that launcher blasts off from a site close enough to the equator that its most accessible orbit matches that of the Moon — 4.5° from the Earth’s equatorial plane —, so you don’t even need so much as a trajectory correction on the way to the Moon.

    A lot of money will be needed to make a new manned space vehicle, because the mission will have to be manned, for installation, adjustments, repairs and upgrades. But in addition to the EU, we can call on the Chinese to help, and the Japanese.

    How about the Arab countries? The Arabs have got a pile of dough, and Arabsat has already launched six satellites (with the EU launcher) for their own use, and the seventh is on its way. And what about the Russians?

    In my view, it’s just a matter of expressing the goal clearly with all its implications, and then cajoling our partners into action. HRC is well equipped to do this. As for the Budget Committee, I think they would rather get on the bus rather than let it run over them.

    (G) Healthcare

    Healthcare consumes $0.17 out of every dollar an American spends. It is thus the largest economic sector in the US. The average European spends about €0.10 out of every Euro.

    This difference is not due to the “fact” that American healthcare is of better quality than European healthcare, because that is not a “fact”; in “fact”, it is patently false. Just look at the results, or look at the process. European healthcare is just as good or better than ours.

    I’ll spare you the comparative description of European and American healthcare systems. Suffice it to say two things:

    1. The 7% difference between the 17% medical costs in the US economy and the 10% of European economies is:

    Waste — unadulterated, certifiable, 100% pure Waste.

    All of this Waste is not going into the pockets of high-quality healthcare providers, but into the pockets of insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and their shareholders.

    Maybe there’s some waste in hospital administration or high delivery costs; but to my mind, that is insignificant. EU doctors earn a very good living, and nurses are paid more than American nurses.

    2. HRC has made it her lifelong goal to achieve universal healthcare for America. There is absolutely no way on earth that she is going to deride the PPACA.

    She does have at least one criticism of the PPACA, though: that the 30-employee threshold for the employer contribution/mandate should be changed. She didn’t say how it should be changed, or if it should be dropped; but my idea would be simply to abolish it — that is, to have all employers pay a certain percentage of payroll for their employees’ health insurance, even for part-time employees, and to take the rest out of the employee’s paycheck.

    That would apply to all employers without threshold. That’s the way it’s done in Europe.

    There are other lessons that can be learned from Europe concerning the pharmaceutical companies. I don’t know anything about this market; but 10 years ago I was taking an American medicine that cost Eight (8) times more than an equivalent French medicine.

    On this subject of pharmaceutical costs, I remember that WJC said he was able to haggle with the makers of HIV medicines to get them change their business model, so that they furnished the medicines at one-tenth the price to the Africans who needed it so desperately.

    So, there are ways to reason the pharmaceutical companies out of their price-gouging practices and into a more amenable “business model”.

    The Challenge

    Though the proposals are limited, the resistance to them will not be.

    To many in Congress — indeed, to many in the general population —, the whole PPACA is rotten to the core, misguided, socialist or whatever, and should be repealed.

    Only a third of the population wants repeal; but there is reason to believe that they are represented by a majority in Congress. The only way to stop this repeal movement is by a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

    However, if HRC has long enough coattails to bring more Dems into the Congress, then some limited measures like what I describe above may be possible on a bipartisan basis.

    (H) The long-term: Too Small to Fail and the participation of women in the economy.

    I group these two objectives together, in an economic context, because they are both viewed as “women’s issues”. They are indeed women’s issues; but the importance of women in the economy, as in politics, is underestimated by the other half of the population. This is a mistake, because both these issues affect both boys and girls and thus men and women.

    (a) “Too Small to Fail” derives verbatim out of HRC’s Methodist playbook. The catchphrase is that children should be brought up and educated so they can “live up to their God-given potential.”

    What is “God-given” to you is what you are born with, before the world opens up to you or closes in on you. HRC wants the very concept of individual blossom and education to be rooted in the cradle, with mothers singing and reading to infants who can’t even talk yet.

    (b) “Involving women in the economy” does not mean pushing the 76-cent rule up to 78 or 79 cents, at least not by lawsuits such as those that are now possible under Ledbetter.

    As HRC has often said, ‘Too Small to Fail’ and ‘Women in the Economy’ are not just humanitarian or women’s issues, but are economic issues as well.

    Concerning women in gainful employment, HRC cites (in Hard Choices) the inaugural address of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in which he said that he intended to spur the sluggish Japanese economy back to life by encouraging more women to enter the work force.

    Leaving aside Abe’s challenges in doing so, it is a self-evident axiom of HRC’s economic agenda that “When women prosper, their families prosper; and when families prosper, nations prosper.” She preached this all around the world, and apparently Shinzo Abe understood it.

    Now it is time for American women, and men, to understand it clearly.

    The Challenge

    There is no partisan challenge to meet, here, or even much investment to throw the way of ‘Too Small to Fail’ or ‘Women in the economy’. Nobody can be against early childhood education or the entry of women into gainful employment. It’s a win-win, the way it always is with HRC.

    HRC might push for a Fair Pay Act or some equivalent; but personally, I think this is a waste of time and effort and I wish she would just let the legal side of it go, and settle for Ledbetter. I don’t think many suits have been brought to court under Ledbetter anyway, though perhaps the threat of them has had some effect.

    In my view, the simple accession of HRC to the highest office in the land will be a signal to women — worldwide — that they are capable of doing things outside the home, just as good if not better than men, and take opportunities that hitherto have been reserved for the male of the species.

    And, the overall challenge for all the above points (A) to (H) on the economic agenda is not so great for someone like HRC. She has a star-power mojo:

    For programs like ‘Too Small to Fail’ and many other such projects, she doesn’t even have to rely on Congressional support or authorization. She can do as she has always done.

    How does she operate? Let me illustrate with a metaphor:

    I see HRC as a kind of Owner-Architect-Prime Contractor wrapped into one, guiding the construction of a large real estate complex, let’s say.

    HRC “owns” the turf and conceives the project like the Owner; she sketches out an overall plan like the Architect; and she gets her hands a little dirty with some of the excavation and foundations like the Prime Contractor.

    And then, again like the Prime Contractor, she “lets” the subcontractors and tradesmen do the rest of the work on their own, cheerleading and stepping in from time to time to keep everybody focused.

    It all leads up to the point where each occupant can plug his/her computer safely into the socket in a fully furnished office.

    In other words, she has a head sharp enough to conduct the whole works, driven by heartstrings strong and long enough to keep the end goal of the end users in mind from beginning to end of project.

    A perfect CEO of the federal government.

  85. Okay, I am trying to plow though your posts since you took the time to write it and God knows I normally zone out on this kind of stuff…but a little humor every now and then wakes me up enough to read a little more…

    I am only gathering the general info as I go, but this caught my eye:

    “Reagan brought Supply-side economics to DC from California, where he should have left it.”

    Raygun was a flying a$$hole of a governor. With his crappy vision on the effin’ hill, he destroyed public education, closed most mental health hospitals, and now our people that are mentally ill roam our homeless shelters without health care nor the mental ability to fight to get some, and those are the lucky ones, (other than those that have families to help them). The rest are in our over crowded jails where they are just caged, not helped.

    I know this for a fact. I won’t go into the many people I have met that are going though this…but all this Raygun bs was to ‘save’ money for Calif.

    He frickin’ ruined some of the best things of our state, and we still have not turned things around.

    Back to working and sometimes reading the blog.

  86. jes, I read your posts out of courtesy because you went to a lot of effort, and because if anyone here asks that we read something, I try to do so. Maybe it’s a southern thing. We’re known for two things down her – racism and politeness – quite contradictory terms there. Maybe we’re just bi-polar (just a little joke, there).

    I wish I had a deep enough understanding of economics to actually offer a cogent response. Admittedly, I don’t accept all of your premises or beliefs about this subject to accurate not because I know they’re wrong – but because I don’t accept anyone’s theory opinion, research findings, etc as certainty. There’s always more to know – more relevant info about the issue that either has been overlooked, has been under or over valued for its relevance, or that is not knowable yet, I would also say that the fact that there are so many uncontrollable variables involved, makes it impossible to reach an sure-fire empirical conclusion.

    It is difficult to see how the stimulus can be considered a successful effort – especially given its contribution to the deficit. The deficit speaks to the psychology involved – on more than one level. People feel the country is extremely vulnerable. Of course, there is pretty good evidence of the fact that we are weaker and more vulnerable, as has been seen by the reduction in our rating. But whether it’s true or not that the country is in pretty bad shape economically, people believe it is. This impacts hope, faith, spending levels, the type of investments people make, if they decide to invest at all, etc.

    The other issue I would mentioned, having worked in the field of public assistance many rears ago, is that of government payments to individuals. People are better off personally, psychologically, physically if they get paid to dig a ditch that other people will be paid to fill, than to be paid to do nothing – if they’re able to work. I believe that many, if not most Americans who are able to work prefer to have a job than a government check. The impact on the national economy of the cost of supporting the voluntarily non-working is not as serious a concern as is the negative psychological impact on life of the voluntarily non-working poor. In turn, the children of the voluntarily non-working poor are even more negatively effected. It’s creates a cycle of poverty.

  87. I ride home from work on a commuter train. Over the last few years, I have noticed the people that ride are not only the working class and students, but also the homeless that beg for the money to ride the commuter train.

    Many sleep on it in bad weather, trying to fit in when ‘caught’ and use it as a warmer shelter then trying to find a place when the few shelters are closed.

    CA has a real problem with this, and I have noticed, without really looking how so many of these people are of working age, wear dirty and worn clothes and are understandably depressed and embarrassed.

    Many have lost their foreclosed homes, lost their jobs from the effing depression we are all in, but no one wants to call it that.

    I do believe these people would not be homeless, for the most part if there were more jobs available.

    I put this tragic scene right smack on the shoulders of Baracko Bama and his crew.

    No jobs, letting in floods of aliens for the middle class to support and he has taken away the American Dream for millions of Americans.

    I am much poorer now than I was in 2008, and so are most of the working class people I know.

    Cash for clunkers didn’t work. Maybe paying someone to dig a hole that is paid to fill it in, helps put money out there…but when the project itself is a failure, it only creates a ‘quick fix’ for the short term. Giving out millions of green energy companies, that went belly up a year or two later, leaving empty, new buildings…is a waste and nothing more.

    There are good plans to fill the whole, and then there where the stupid, wasteful plans of Obama.

  88. $hitsticks…here, let me correct my typos before someone goes bonkers…

    1- Giving out millions TO green energy (start up) companies…

    2- There are good plans to fill the HOLE

    If there are more, screw it

  89. Shadow, I think we all got the gist – typos or not. There were so many in my last post, I didn’t even bother. Fingers moving faster than brain – I guess.

    You’re right about the jobs issue. One big factor, as we know, was Obamacare, which made it necessary for employers to either shut down completely or cutback workers from full time to part time.

    Another issue for some is the inability to trust what the Obama WH says with regard to the jobs report or another statement of (non) fact issued by the administration regarding this country’s economic health. There are always such discrepancies between what O says and what the reality is.

  90. The bottom line….the big lie.

    Here’s something that many Americans — including some of the smartest and most educated among us — don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

    Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

    None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

    There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

    Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

    There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

    And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

    Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

    I hear all the time that “unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren’t feeling it.” When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth — the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real — then we will quit wondering why Americans aren’t “feeling” something that doesn’t remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

    Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.


  91. You’re right Free, ObamaCare closed out many small companies, full time jobs and left workers without health care out in the cold from a website that didn’t work, or because the cost was higher than they could ever afford.

    I can’t tell you how many O’supporters that listen to the MSM thought they would get free health care and Obama would NEVER make them pay a fine for not buying into a plan.

    After Obola reads his scripted speeches, I wonder if he walks away asking himself…”I wonder if these fools actually believed the whopper of a lie I just told them. Yeah, they would believe anything I dish out!”

  92. freespirit, Shadowafax and VotingHillary,

    Thank you for all your comments:

    Shadowfax puts another couple of nails into Reagan’s coffin. Problem is, the Republicans haven’t buried the coffin yet; they have it on display, nails and all, at the steps of Capitol, with the formaldehyde regularly replenished so thathis holy visage can be viewed by all, guarded by the finest of the Republican Establishment, except perhaps Romney. It’s a tribute much like that given to Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh in their respective shrines. It would be more fitting to prepare a dummy of Hitler in an empty suit, which they could preserve for the thousand-year Republican Reich, or leave it to Obola if he ever succumbs to Ebola.

    freespirit stresses a few points that I actually made in the posts. I didn’t say all I could about Obola, because I was trying to find something the Clinton’s could support, in the 4th post. But I did say they could give him a few slices of headcheese for his efforts, which would be a Clintonesque way of saying “thanks, but no thanks.”

    freespirit also points out the one thing that HRC has criticized about the PPACA, which is the 30-employee floor on the employer mandate. I talked about that in the 5th post and am willing to go into it deeper, from the businessman’s or economic standpoint.

    VotingHillary points to the very important fact that statistics are always misleading if you don’t analyze them correctly (which few people do), and even more so if you intentionally leave out or delete certain statistics or add irrelevant ones.

    None of you, though, has a reaction to the fifth post, which was the object of the whole spiel. The 5th post is HRC’s economic agenda as she is sure to issue it starting in July.

    “Sure”? Well, let’s say that I’m not so sure she has thought through (E) Finance the way I have. But I don’t she why she wouldn’t propose rental and lease-purchase, because they’re savvy techniques that could be easily leveraged.

    Also, I’m dead certain about (F) The New Space Race. But I’m also sure that the specific proposal I make in (F) will never have crossed her mind.

    That is why I am writing up a letter to Chappaqua to “expose” her own economic agenda to her and Team Hillary, and draw her attention to Post Five points (E) and (F).

    I hope I will get a reply; but in order to get a reply, I will have to swear absolute confidentiality. So I will never disclose the contents of the reply, or identify the person who sent it, here at H44 or anywhere else.

    However, I know how confidentiality works for having lived by its rules for 40 years. For example, I used to work on documents under Défense Secret… any leak would expose me to criminal prosecution in France, plus a civil suit for damages, even if the injured party is foreign to France.

  93. Shadowfax February 4, 2015 at 12:49 am

    I can’t tell you how many O’supporters that listen to the MSM thought they would get free health care and Obama would NEVER make them pay a fine for not buying into a plan.

    Well, that just shows how brainless O’supporters can be.

    What is “free health care”? No health care workers anywhere in the world — even in the jungles of Africa — work for free, so who’s going to pay them?

    They might have thought they were going to get “free” nationalized medicine like the UK, Canada and elsewhere. But the healthcare providers in those countries are well paid, out of taxes. That is, everybody pays, not the patient.

    The idea behind the PPACA was to get everyone on private insurance, with no public option, and then subsidize those who couldn’t afford the private insurance.

    The vicious thing about it is, that to “save” money, the subsidies are doled out in the form of tax credits, whereas nobody who is eligible for subsidies earns enough to pay taxes anyway — they’re in the 0% tax bracket, or they’re unemployed. So the tax credits don’t do them any good, and their choice is either to pay insurance they can’t afford or pay the fine.

    Since the fine is the smaller of the two, and is next to nothing if you’re a low-income earner, you would think people would opt for that.

    But that leaves them without healthcare coverage, which they very well might need. So they go to the ER and plead poverty as they have always done.

    The bottom line is: Can HRC fix this pernicious quandary? In Post 5, I give one possible answer to one point, the employer mandate. I have no other answers, but I might get some from Chappaqua….

  94. Hey freespirit — I didn’t know you were from the South! “SouthernBorn” announces that pretty clearly… but I thought you were from California… That’s why I thought you would be on hand to do Shadowfax’s dirty work with the Obots that annoy her.

    Now that I think of it, your description of southerners as racist but polite does fit… actually, I got into some pretty weighty discussions about racism the last times I was there (I don’t count Florida, of course, so my forays into the “real” South date from the 50s to the 70s).

    So, I never did notice a hypocrisy or contradiction between politeness and racism. What I noticed was a violent streak — everybody I met had hand guns and rifles, practiced with them, often carried them, and I’ve heard they use them for things other than hunting and target practice.

    You showed the same streak…. So I put California + Violence together and came up with the party to end Shadowfax’s worries forever… should have thought of Bloody Mary’s !!

  95. Jes, I meant to imply that outsiders accuse Southerners of being racist – not that we are. Some of us are racists. A lot of us aren’t . Just as some of the French hate Jews. A lot don’t. I don’t count myself as racist – quite the opposite. In fact, until Obama came into office and intentionally tried to resurrect even the race issues that had been resolved, race was not as much of an issue with people throughout the country – not just in the South.

    Morgan Freeman has been quoted as saying, when asked why he would return to the “racist South” to retire – In the South, when people are racist, you know it. They don’t hide it. In the North and other areas, you encounter people who are just as racist as Southerners, but they pretend not to be. (that’s far from the exact wording, but the meaning is close).

    Regarding the gun issue, jes. Most of the South is rural, and in most rural communities down here there is no shortage of big, poisonous snakes. If people are engaging in outdoor leisure pursuits such as fishing, hiking, picnicking , hunting etc. they often find it’s wise to have a weapon to protect themselves and children from snakes – especially in the spring when snakes are more vicious.
    Not everyone down here is armed. But, you’re right. Many are.

    I was trying to jerk your chain when I said I had a gun. I don’t own one. Although I don’t want the federal government to deny second amendment rights. The criminals would continue to own guns whether or not the law allowed it. Many gun owners are already violating the law by owning a gun – because they are convicted felons. They don’t by them at Guns-R-Us. The guns aren’t registered. They have no problem obtaining them. Only law abiding citizens would be impacted by gun control laws.

    That is why I am writing up a letter to Chappaqua to “expose” her own economic agenda to her and Team Hillary, and draw her attention to Post Five points (E) and (F).


    Never let it be said that you are lacking in self-confidence and self-esteem, jes.

  96. I would love to know just how many of these NY residents are Obama supporters. My guess is upwards of 90%. They’re wealthy. They’re cool. They live in 3 million dollar houses. And, they don’t want no stinkin’ handicap accommodations cluttering their view of the river.

    Wealthy New Yorkers are trying to block plans for a new disabled access bridge across a busy highway as it would intrude on their million-dollar river views in one of Manhattan’s richest neighborhoods.

    The community board representing Upper East Side residents voted unanimously to relocate a wheelchair-accessible overpass under new proposals that would instead force disabled people to make their way past a dangerous parking garage.
    The call to move the proposed new bridge across the FDR Highway was driven by residents of an upmarket tower block where apartments with views of the East River sell for up to $3 million.


  97. Hillary weighs in on vaccines. Her tweet doesn’t say that government should require that all children be vaccinated. Some Repubs are making this the issue.

    Absent from all of the articles I have seen regarding this is any mention of undocumented, unvaccinated kids transported to various areas throughout this country by O Administration.

    On Monday evening former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came down firmly on the pro-vaccine side, tweeting: “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids.”

    She ended her message with the hashtag “#GrandmothersKnowBest”, yet another hint that her newly minted grandmaternal status could be leaned on heavily to provide her with a softer image as she gears up for her possible campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Meanwhile Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took a decidedly different tack on Monday, reiterating his position that most vaccines should be “voluntary” and that parental choice is “an issue of freedom”.

    “I don’t understand the point of why that would be controversial,” the Republican told a CNBC interviewer, adding that he’s a “big fan” of vaccines. But, he said: “I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”.


  98. funny I haven’t heard any discussion of Rubella ( German measles) and the devastating effects on a developing human fetus. This is a train wreck waiting to happen.

  99. I hadn’t thought about that, alcina.

    According to this source, the fetus can be infected with the virus if the mom gets it. Vaccination of the mother provides a measure of protection to her and her unborn child. However, it is possible for even the mother who was vaccinated as a child to contract Rubella – if her immunity has weakened over time. Obviously, vaccination makes it much less likely that she will get the virus and subsequently, pass it on to the fetus.


  100. I was at a debate over public unions, and whether their wages, hours and working conditions are so high that they are sucking the resources from government to the point that vital services to the poor and the middle class are closing down. One one side, you had an author with a libertarian streak who supports private union but not public ones because of the unsavory alliance with the political class, where they deliver the votes to a politician and he delivers public money to them in return, and unlike the private sector where the public does not have to buy the good or the service, with public unions and their political whores it is compulsory.

    On the other side was a man who sees no problem with either public or private unions–they are all good. He is the director of the Harry Bridges Institute, if that name means anything to you. He made a point–actually a number of them, but for our purposes here and now one of them. Not surprisingly, he hates Scott Walker and referred to him as a second tier candidate in the Republican Party. Of course, he beat the union in Wisconsin, even though they poured vast resources into that venue.

    Nevertheless, what we are talking about here is not a state election but a national election, and an electoral college where with a credible candidate, the democrats control 240 electoral votes right off the bat and the Republicans pour no money into those states. This as much as anything is what makes them so timid, such a bunch of cowards, such hypocrites–no more capable of serving the public interest than Obama–but not quite as contemptuous of it.

    Therefore, until a few minutes ago, I would have dismissed the prospects of a Walker candidacy the same way the union intellectual did—until I realized that among all the prospective Republican candidates he alone can unite the establishment and the base. Morris. Also, he is widely views as the most effective Republican governor. (Q: like, um, er .. .. Dewey perhaps?).

    Finally with respect to my favorite Republican candidate, the light bringer, Morris says this:

    “Ted Cruz’s views fit the Tea Party like a glove but his brand of fiery politics may be too much for establishment ears. He is so effective and so on target that he scares the cautious GOP establishment to death.”

    Now if Ted Cruz is so effective and so on target that he scares the GOP establishment to death, it becomes obvious where the problem is, and it aint with Ted Cruz. The problem is with all those fucking useless, smiling, blood sucking humps, like McCain, Graham, Aloitte, Huevan, Heller, Collins, Flake, etc. the human flotsam and jestsom of our political system pretending to be leaders and protector of the middle class with their noses so far up the asses of their contributors that they cannot breath—those mushballs who adulterate the Republican brand, love lobbyists, and are co conspirators with Ogama in the transmorgification of this nation. These parasites who have attacked themselves to the host and are killing it year by year. 92 million Americans out of work, a 20 trillion dollar budget, and still they tell us everything is fine, don’t listen to Cruz, he is too extreme.


    Scott Walker Could Win
    Published on TheHill.com on February 3, 2015

    Scott Walker is the only ambidextrous candidate in the Republican field. He appeals equally to the Republican establishment and the Tea Party/evangelical wingers.

    All other candidates fit neatly in one or the other box. While Jeb Bush’s record in Florida used to make him the most attractive member of his family to conservatives, he has blown that accolade with his strong support for immigration amnesty and Common Core.

    Chris Christie was never the darling of conservatives, but his appeal to establishment Republicans is obvious.

    Neither Bush nor Christie is a switch-hitter.

    On the right, Ted Cruz’s views fit the Tea Party like a glove but his brand of fiery politics may be too much for establishment ears. He is so effective and so on target that he scares the cautious GOP establishment to death. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have perfect pitch in appealing to evangelicals, but, perforce, are too out there for the more establishment types.

    Rand Paul and Marco Rubio both have the potential to be transcendent, Paul because he is blazing new ideological grounds and Rubio because of his cautious, respectful tone.

    But both are very young and the establishment doesn’t want to take chances. Can Rubio hold his own on a national stage (without frequent gulps of water)? Can Paul’s libertarian ideology catch on? The establishment would rather not find out with the presidency on the line.

    Paul also runs afoul of the national security wing of the establishment, a potent part of the centrist coalition.

    Rick Perry once spanned the centrist and Tea Party wings of the party — until he imploded in 2012. Can he recover from his ungraceful exit last time? Can he overcome the phony indictment under which partisan Texas prosecutors have forced him to labor? We don’t know yet.

    Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Huckabee, Santorum and Perry are all are hoping to be crossovers, keeping their Tea Party base but appealing to the center as well. But Walker is effortlessly able to battle for the establishment, the Tea Party and the evangelical vote. And there is no reason for him to have trouble with national security voters, either.

    The Wisconsin governor has been elected and reelected, and defeated a recall attempt in a key swing state. His combat credentials are enough to assuage worries the establishment might have about a first-time candidate. His record on job creation and fiscal discipline is admirable. He is the Christie who succeeded; Wisconsin is where the New Jersey governor dreamed his state would be.

    Yet Walker’s credentials as a battler against the left earn him backing from the right wing of the Republican Party, including his stand against municipal unions, amnesty and Common Core.

    From the Republican point of view, he is America’s most successful governor. He offers a chance to take the education issue away from Hillary Clinton. He has actually turned a school system around, ironically, by applying some of the very same remedies Clinton first proposed in Arkansas in 1982 but has long since abandoned in her sycophancy toward the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

    And Walker has been vetted. He has been through a trial by fire that no other GOP presidential aspirant has. Under the constant pressure of the municipal labor unions, continuously tested in recalls (both his own and his senators’), he has survived nicely.

    Energetic, young, charismatic and fresh, Walker provides just the kind of generational contrast Clinton has most to fear. And, now with Mitt Romney out of the race, he can spread his wings.


  101. foxyladi14
    February 3, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Good ol’ Alcee Hastings.

    A case of reincarnation: first a judge, then a racketeer, then a politician. Or, perhaps, a natural progression?

    From wiki:

    n 1979, he was appointed by President Carter as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.

    In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. In 1983, he was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).[2]

    In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate (also controlled by the Democrats), becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate, in two hours of roll calls, voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment. It convicted Hastings of eight of the 11 articles. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed,[3] providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office.

  102. Unfortunately Free, that’s not what Hillary said in 2008. She actually voiced some doubts. Funny how she is condescending now, insinuating that Republican’s are anti science.
    It’s the Media and Democrats that are trying to make this an issue, to beat the Republican’s as Neanderthal’s.
    No one is pointing the finger where a lot of the problems are…illegal aliens. ..
    Not only the measles, but the polio like disease that is rampant in Honduras and magically is infecting American children. Imagine how you would feel if your child was paralyzed secondary to Obama lack of protecting this Country?

  103. gonzotx

    we used to have a place called Ellis Island.. As antiquated as it was, it held many illnesses in check.

  104. wbboei

    February 4, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    February 3, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Good ol’ Alcee Hastings.


    wbboei and foxy…

    what I find so ironic…and laughable…about Hasting’s comments are…he is calling Texas ‘crazy’ and he comes from ‘Florida’….pleeease…almost every crazy story in the news has a Florida connection…

    the man is shameless

  105. freespirit
    February 4, 2015 at 10:14 am

    Jes, I meant to imply that outsiders accuse Southerners of being racist – not that we are. Some of us are racists. A lot of us aren’t .

    What the hay, all of us Big Pinkers are racists because we don’t support the Holy Obola!

  106. foxyladi14
    February 4, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Screw them idiots!!!! 🙁

    Hollyweird covered with feathers and the air is filled with the sound of tambourines and deerskin drums.

    Crackpots that have no clue.

  107. Scott Walker Could Win

    Now there’s a couple of guys that give me the creeps.

    I have no interest in Walker the guy with the freakin’ crazy eyes, and Morris’ 15 minutes have come and gone.

  108. “Now there’s a couple of guys(Scott Walker & Dick Morris) that give me the creeps.”


  109. “Qui bono” from the race problem.

    Who benefits??—other than the race hustlers in big media, the NAACP, the black caucus, the entertainment industry–and the limousine liberal.

    Go back and study the Sowell videos if you want the truth.

Comments are closed.