Yes, once again we are poised over the sleeping vampire with a stake in one hand and a mallet in the other. Will she awaken at the last minute and once again cheat death? Well it is Hillary and I won’t make the same mistake and count her out before I see the body. I need to see her feet curl up under the house. I am writing this today (2/13/2008) so that I can be on record as predicting the nastiness that I believe is coming.
Last night Barack Obama spoke here in Madison in front of a packed Kohl Center crowd with the overflow watching from the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion next door. He took the stage a little late, because, I believe, they were waiting for the official results from the Maryland primary. He was then able to lead off with an announcement that they had just captured their eighth primary/caucus in a row. The experts have been putting the pencil to the scenarios unfolding and their judgment is that she is toast. She is apparently going to concede Wisconsin and Hawaii to Obama and try to make her last stand in Ohio and Texas. The problem with that strategy, they say, is that she is already in a position that says she has to win the remaining contests with at least a 55% to 45% margin. But with each additional primary she loses, that percentage goes up. After she loses in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage goes to 57%. If she then loses the next group (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota) it goes to 60%. Considering that she lost Virginia 63% to 37%, that’s looks pretty much impossible. He’s got all the momentum, which is even more important in politics than it is in football. He’s got, and is raising more money, and he is having a whirlwind romance with the media. And all of those are good reasons that he’d better double the size of his secret service protection detail.
I’m only half joking when I suggest she’d try to take him out physically. Her preferred method will likely be a sudden revelation about something shady in Obama’s past. They hinted a long time ago that they had a real juicy bit on Barack when they were trying to promote the idea that he can’t beat the Republicans. Of course it was always pitched that they, the Clintons, would never think of releasing that information, but they had no doubt the Republicans would when they thought the time was right. Which implied that would be right after he secures the nomination. See? Then it would be too late to have Hillary rescue the Dems. Clinton surrogates have been whispering for months now that “Well, we all know that there is a certain element in the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black man.” But the problem with that canard is that they never consider that there is also a large element who will never vote for a white woman either. And furthermore, neither of those two groups were ever likely to vote for a liberal Democrat to begin with! So you are really talking about losing votes you never had.
But look, the bottom line is Clinton is losing. And that is not acceptable to Clinton Inc. They may have gotten burned after going negative in South Carolina, but that won’t stop them because going negative is what they know and what they know works. I’m predicting that a “scandalous” issue will surface. It will not come directly from the Clinton camp. They will try to make sure their fingerprints aren’t blatantly on it, but frankly, that’s of secondary concern now. Everybody will suspect it came from them anyway, so they won’t be able to totally avoid any blowback. But they can see that if they don’t bring his train to a screeching halt, and soon, none of this will matter. I think (hope?) that she is not the least bit interested in the VP slot. That would require an eight year wait for her turn and God knows how she’ll be viewed by then. I said a year ago that she’d pick Bill Richardson as her VP, but now I’ve heard that Bill recently ripped Richardson when he wouldn’t endorse Hillary. Supposedly the comment to his one time UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary was “What? Two cabinet appointments weren’t enough?” God I hope that’s a true story. I think Richardson, like the Super Delegates, is waiting to see who comes out on top. In fact, he’d probably be more valuable as Obama’s VP than he would as Hillary’s.
I’m fully expecting to update this post once the scandal breaks.
2/21/08 Update:
She got absolutely trounced in Wisconsin and Hawaii so they uncorked the scandal.
So far the "scandal" has fizzled. About 5 days ago Clinton Inc. fed a story to reporters that Obama was plagarizing his speeches. They showed them clips of a recent Obama speech and then clips from Governor Deval Patrick's (D-Mass.) speech from two years ago using the same language. Oh, and then they denied that they were the source, naturally. It got no traction at all. It makes me think that they really don't have anything on him, or they would have used it. At this point even her most ardent supporters are admitting that she's toast, and are reduced to speculating on the reasons why she is losing. And the parade of negative stories just keep on coming. Lots of stuff about the profligate spending and their mounting finacial woes. But they just can't stop themselves from spinning the story. Check this quote from a Politico story:
" Clinton’s 2007 year-end report showed her owing more than $5 million to vendors ranging from phone bank firms and pollsters to charter airline operators and telephone companies. Her campaign last month dismissed those debts as a matter of bookkeeping. "These are not true debts accruing by (sic) the campaign, but simply unpaid invoices," said spokesman Blake Zeff.
Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had enough money in the bank to pay off its debts (it finished the year with $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election). "Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses," said Zeff. "
Mr Zeff should take an elementary accounting class so that he might discover that unpaid invoices are exactly and precisely "true debts accruing to the campaign." But aside from that, does he really expect us to believe that they haven't paid $1,300 to Dunkin' Donuts because they need additional information for their records? Like how many were jelly filled?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Women and Minorities
The joke goes like this. One day God gets fed up with the world and decides that he’s going to end the world and bring about the apocalypse. So, as a courtesy, he calls up the New York Times and tells them what he’s going to do. At first they don’t believe him, but he performs a few miracles and pretty soon they’re convinced they are talking to The Almighty. So the next morning the Times headline was “World to End Today! Women and Minorities to be Hit Hardest.”
Seriously, though, the term “Women and Minorities” is curious because of how the terms seem so intertwined while they are often at odds. Women, for instance, are a majority. They may only be a small one, but by being slightly more than 50%, they are the only group who can lay stake to that claim. Anyway, in yesterdays Wisconsin State Journal there was a story about the Madison Affirmative Action Commission and a study they released on the ethnic and gender make up of city managers. It was oh so typical of the position these kinds of commissions tend to take. It even had the obligatory misleading statistic to back up their findings. I could have told you their findings before reading a word, but sure enough the opening sentence stated that the city “should do more to hire and give equal pay to women and minority managers and top paid professionals...” Nothing surprising there. Later in the article they mention that “women and minority managers and top paid professionals make about 95% of the earnings of men or non-minorities...” (By the way, isn’t that worded in an odd manner? If you are not a woman, a man or a minority, what kind of “non-minority” could you be? Are they double counting white women when it suits there agenda? Are they counting minority men twice?) And they point out that the gap for agency heads is even bigger with the women and minorities only getting 86% as much as men.
But then they toss in the caveat that the “reports don’t factor individual seniority or level, or education into the formulas.” And my question would be, why not? Was that too difficult to do? I don’t think so. Aren’t those factors the most likely to have a dramatic effect on ones’ income in a bureaucracy? Of course they are. By leaving those factors out are you more likely come up with a report that says there is work to be done to close the gap? Obviously yes, unless it turned out that the women and minorities were the ones with the superior education or seniority level, in which case their argument would be even stronger. And that is exactly why I’m pretty sure that was not the case. They would not have missed that opportunity.
But the kicker came in the paragraphs that had the raw numbers:
“Just 34 percent of the city’s 429 top paid professionals are women and 10 percent are minorities, about the same as 2003, the report says.
Yet women represent 41 percent and minorities 8 percent of the available labor pool for those top positions, Dane County and state data show.”
That’s right, minorities are actually 25% over represented, and women are only 20% under represented. The differences are small I agree, and I’m not looking to get 2% of the minorities fired just to even things up. But don’t you think they could at least acknowledge that there isn’t a need to hire more to close a gap that isn’t there? Couldn’t you say we’re doing great on minorities but we have way to go on women? Why can’t these groups be separated since their circumstances are different?
The lefties are always so mind numbed in their quest to support women and minorities they can’t even recognize success. I remember a few years ago there was an article about a teacher at West High School who was something of a curmudgeon. He’d sit his van outside and smoke cigarettes while he graded papers. He complained about the lack of male teachers and thought it was not a good thing that one gender dominated the profession. When they went to the head of the DPI for a comment all she could come up with was that they were trying to hire more women and minorities.
Seriously, though, the term “Women and Minorities” is curious because of how the terms seem so intertwined while they are often at odds. Women, for instance, are a majority. They may only be a small one, but by being slightly more than 50%, they are the only group who can lay stake to that claim. Anyway, in yesterdays Wisconsin State Journal there was a story about the Madison Affirmative Action Commission and a study they released on the ethnic and gender make up of city managers. It was oh so typical of the position these kinds of commissions tend to take. It even had the obligatory misleading statistic to back up their findings. I could have told you their findings before reading a word, but sure enough the opening sentence stated that the city “should do more to hire and give equal pay to women and minority managers and top paid professionals...” Nothing surprising there. Later in the article they mention that “women and minority managers and top paid professionals make about 95% of the earnings of men or non-minorities...” (By the way, isn’t that worded in an odd manner? If you are not a woman, a man or a minority, what kind of “non-minority” could you be? Are they double counting white women when it suits there agenda? Are they counting minority men twice?) And they point out that the gap for agency heads is even bigger with the women and minorities only getting 86% as much as men.
But then they toss in the caveat that the “reports don’t factor individual seniority or level, or education into the formulas.” And my question would be, why not? Was that too difficult to do? I don’t think so. Aren’t those factors the most likely to have a dramatic effect on ones’ income in a bureaucracy? Of course they are. By leaving those factors out are you more likely come up with a report that says there is work to be done to close the gap? Obviously yes, unless it turned out that the women and minorities were the ones with the superior education or seniority level, in which case their argument would be even stronger. And that is exactly why I’m pretty sure that was not the case. They would not have missed that opportunity.
But the kicker came in the paragraphs that had the raw numbers:
“Just 34 percent of the city’s 429 top paid professionals are women and 10 percent are minorities, about the same as 2003, the report says.
Yet women represent 41 percent and minorities 8 percent of the available labor pool for those top positions, Dane County and state data show.”
That’s right, minorities are actually 25% over represented, and women are only 20% under represented. The differences are small I agree, and I’m not looking to get 2% of the minorities fired just to even things up. But don’t you think they could at least acknowledge that there isn’t a need to hire more to close a gap that isn’t there? Couldn’t you say we’re doing great on minorities but we have way to go on women? Why can’t these groups be separated since their circumstances are different?
The lefties are always so mind numbed in their quest to support women and minorities they can’t even recognize success. I remember a few years ago there was an article about a teacher at West High School who was something of a curmudgeon. He’d sit his van outside and smoke cigarettes while he graded papers. He complained about the lack of male teachers and thought it was not a good thing that one gender dominated the profession. When they went to the head of the DPI for a comment all she could come up with was that they were trying to hire more women and minorities.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Just Quotes
Today's posting will consist solely of two quotes and a news item.
Quote #1
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Quote #2
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
News Item
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans
Quote #1
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Quote #2
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
News Item
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans
Friday, February 1, 2008
More Carbon Nuetral Nonsense
Today I heard a radio spot from Madison Gas and Electric. They are now offering a program where they claim that if you send them a little more money each month ("$6 for the average home") that they will see to it that 100% of the carbon your electricity produces will be 'offset." Does anybody actually believe this? Considering that my average energy bill is around $300 per month, they are saying that for a measley 2% more they can totally eliminate my carbon footprint. So why don't they just go ahead and do it and raise my rates 2%? Even the Citizens Utility Board would buy in to that. Certainly a 2% increase would br worth ending the "dire" threat of global warming. It would stop it instantly. Even conservatives like me would approve of it so we wouldn't have to keep hearing all that idiotic whinning about how we 're going to have to kill the economy in order to save the planet. And they'd have to stop giving Al Gore major awards (The only one he hasn't bagged yet is a Tony.)
My guess as to why this is being ignored is that most people instinctively know that you probably can't offset the carbon produced by $300 worth of electricity and gas with $6, no matter what you do with it.
My guess as to why this is being ignored is that most people instinctively know that you probably can't offset the carbon produced by $300 worth of electricity and gas with $6, no matter what you do with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)