Posts Tagged ‘Al Gore’

Third party

People are not discussing a third political party correctly.

We are about to have third-party rule

I predict we will have a victorious third-party presidential candidate and maybe a Congressional majority of that party that year or in the next mid-term election. How will this happen?

Going to hit a financial wall

The U.S. government will finally hit the financial wall that has been predicted for decades with increasing alarm. The American people will, when that happens, finally wake up to the fact that current government spending is a runaway train and that spending cuts in entitlement programs are required—not just one possible solution. Both the Republican and Democrat parties will be totally discredited when it happens. They and the various presidents have been virtually incapable of cutting entitlement programs. The Dems are far more guilty than the Republicans, but the Republicans are not innocent.

When?

When will this happen? I am not sure. I increasingly see big-time economists on TV and in live speeches make predictions along the lines of,

[Pause to think about the question] Five years, not ten.

Can’t borrow anymore

In other words, their best estimate is financial collapse of U.S. government (inability to sell bonds to anyone but the U.S. Federal Reserve who gets the money to buy them by “printing” it) in four (2014), five (2015), maybe six (2016) years, but surely not as long into the future as ten (2020) years. “Printing” that much money causes high inflation or hyperinflation, which will drive the two incumbent parties out of existence. Inability to sell U.S. government bonds means inability to deficit spend and inability to rollover the already existing national debt when the various bonds we sold in the past mature. That, in turn, means the government’s checks will bounce.

The government will be forced to increase taxes and/or cut spending, but neither will be enough to make the government’s check stop bouncing because the debt has grown so large (approaching 100% of the nation’s gross domestic product, that is, all the money made by all the private citizens and businesses in America in a year.)

The politicians will probably try to avoid tax increases and spending cuts by three illegitimate gimmicks, namely,

hyperinflation (all your bank accounts become worth zero—the public will riot)
default on the national debt (announcing your government bonds are worthless and that the government deposit insurance is out of money—which it already is, actually)
financial repression—that is, sort of forcing you to put your money into banks that pay little or no interest then forcing those banks to buy U.S. government bonds for more than they are worth

Dems and Republicans both out

Like I said, all of this nonsense will obliterate the Democrats and Republicans off the face of the earth, and deservedly so. The nation will then be ruled by a third party as a result.

Capitalist or socialist?

Will the third party be capitalist or socialist? It could go either way. Hyperinflation in Germany in 1920 to 1923 arguably led to Adolf Hitler winning election as chancellor in 1933. His party was fascist (same as socialist only they let private business continue to own their companies but tell them how to operate them). 20th century revolutions in various countries led to socialist or communist governments.

Essentially, it will be a more extreme version of the 2008 election where the left said the crisis was caused by not enough government control and the right said it was too much government control. The left won that election, but may not have been able to win a rematch within a year of inauguration of their crowd. Fundamentally, capitalism is the only system that works and the only one that can allow people to live in freedom. Although socialists initially won in places like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, the fact that socialism does not work ultimately crushed those governments and replaced them with capitalist (Russia) or quasi-capitalist (China, Vietnam) governments. So we may get less government intrusion in the economy after the federal government financial collapses—or more. It took the Soviet Union 69 years to collapse.

It will be a key moment in U.S. history and there will probably be a capitalist third party and a socialist third party vying to take over. The winner will not be decided by who’s the best party. It will be decided by political power. The meek shall not inherit the United States.

Split your side’s votes and thereby elect the guy you hate the most

The typical comment is that third parties elect the opponent of their members because they split their side’s vote. That has happened. Ross Perot took 19% of the 1992 vote, mostly from Republican George H.W. Bush, thereby electing Democrat Bill Clinton. Ralph Nader took 2.74% of the 2000 vote running on the Green Party ticket. Most notably, he took votes away from Al Gore in NH and FL. Gore lost both states by tiny margins. Had he won either, he would have been elected president.

However, it must also be noted that Ross Perot’s sole issue was balancing the budget. And it must be noted that the U.S. government ran a surplus during Clinton’s administration in 1999 and 2000 and in the first year of Republican George W. Bush’s administration, 2001. George W. Bush is the son of the George H.W. Bush who was defeated because he let Perot own the budget-balancing issue. I suspect Clinton ran relatively small deficits and two surpluses in part because he was afraid of losing the voters who voted for Perot.

Wasting your vote

Another knock on third parties is that you are wasting your vote if you ever vote for one. That is almost certainly not true. Take the 2008 election. I voted for the Libertarian. Obama won my state, California, by 8,274,47 to 5,011,781. Nader got 108,381 votes; Libertarian Bob Barr, 67,582. I was one of the 67,582.

Those who say I wasted my vote want me to vote for McCain. In view of the fact that he lost by more than 3 million votes, why would my vote for McCain not have been wasted? The same thing would apply if I had voted for Obama.

Once, my wife and I voted against a local bond issue. After several recounts, it lost by two votes. In that election, my vote was not wasted. But my vote was insignificant in every other government election I ever voted in. Basically, your vote only matters if the election is really close.

By voting for a third-party candidate in a non-close election, you send a message. The message is: this party is more what I want. That is precisely the message sent by Perot voters in 1992, and Clinton got the message with regard to the budget. No politician with a brain ignores the issue that got a presidential candidate 19% of the vote.

The Democrats and Republicans were third parties once

The 1824 presidential election in the U.S. was between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Oddly, both represented a party known as the Democratic-Republican Party. I kid you not. Other major parties in the 1700s and 1800s included the Federalists and the Whigs.

The first Democrat party election was 1828 when Andrew Jackson won. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by a then kooky fringe group of anti-slavery activists.

So the notion that all third parties are nutcakes perpetually tilting at windmills is wrong. Most are, but the current two major parties were once third parties.

Also, some windmill tilters, like Perot and the Socialist party, never won in the U.S., but they did influence the guy who did win. It has been noted that the FDR New Deal was essentially the Socialist Party platform of 1901. As part of my research for the book I am writing on inflation and deflation, I studied the New Deal. Much of it was the old deal, that is, a continuation of the policies of FDR’s Republican successor Herbert Hoover.

Parties can change and have

When I was a kid, negroes were almost all Republican. The Democrat party, especially their split-off the Dixiecrats, were the party of segregation. Then, in the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested and Democrat presidential candidate John F. Kennedy called King in jail. Four years later, Democrat President Johnson got the Civil Rights At of 1964 enacted into law and some other similar laws. Johnson did it because it was the right thing to do, and he was worried about his legacy, but he noted it “will cost us the South,” which it did. During the 1968 campaign for president, Republican Richard Nixon ran in part on a restoration of “law and order.” In 1967, there had been many race riots in U.S. cities. The majority was extremely angry about that. The phrase “law and order” was interpreted as code referring to being anti-black rioters and looters.

Since then, negroes became blacks and very few ever vote Republican. The former Confederacy generally now votes Republican, indeed, in 2008, pundits said the Republicans had become a Southeastern regional party only.

If the Tea Party wants to have a positive effect, they need to do something like what Kennedy and Johnson did to the Democrat party with regard to civil rights.

Another issue is there is too much abstract talk. Talk radio callers and hosts incessantly say that the Republican Party needs to become more conservative.

I don’t know about that. When they get talking to each other, conservative radio callers and hosts can convince themselves that everyone is conservative. They are not. Plus, the word “conservative” rarely appears on a U.S. ballot. Power in U.S. politics goes through candidates, not parties. As soon as the presidential candidate in named, he becomes the leader of the party. And most party-backed candidates think little of abandoning the platform of their party even during the campaign. If the Tea Party wants to take over the Republican party, they need to back a candidate who wins the Republican nomination. Running their mouths and waving signs means nothing.

It may be fun to endlessly talk about abstractions like conservative and liberal, but if you are in the changing-politics business, you need to drop the abstractions and find a candidate. You can’t beat somebody with nobody.

Wait in the wings

The other thing a third party that really wants to effect change, rather than just run their mouths, can do, is prepare for the crisis that causes their agenda to become mainstream. The Libertarian party seems content to be a debating society. The public might be willing to embrace their ideas if and when the U.S. government goes bankrupt. But the Libertarian Party is not prepared to run a true campaign. They are philosophers. They have no real political expertise, no get-out-the-vote machinery, no registration mechanism, no capacity to make commercials, and so on.

The third party that will inherit the nation will be the one that gets ready for the fiscal collapse. When that happens, the mainstream of America will be ready to turn to the third party. Indeed, the third party will actually be the first party and the Republicans and Democrats will overnight become third parties.

Larry King Live

The American people are not quite ready to elect a third-party candidate president. But they are closer than most believe.

In 1992, Ross Perot was the leader in the polls before he suddenly dropped out because he heard a rumor his political enemies were planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. Then he got back in and still got 19% of the vote in spite of his dropping out being perceived as nutty.

Furthermore, Perot did not plan to become a candidate. It happened because of a casual question he was asked on Larry King Live. Larry asked Perot if he would run and Perot said he would if there was a popular outcry for him. As a result, a third party formed overnight for the purpose of nominating him. As I said above, Perot was AHEAD IN THE POLLS—ahead of both the ultimate loser in the election, George H.W. Bush—the incumbent president at the time—and ahead of the ultimate winner in the 1992 election: Bill Clinton.

Larry King Live is a pretty famous TV show nowadays, but it wasn’t always. I was the guest on the show on 1/26/87 along with a then get-rich-quick real estate investment guru named Dave DelDotto who used to appear in TV infomercials from the beach in Hawaii. He went bankrupt since. I got the impression the show hurt Del Dotto. He now has a winery in Northern California. (I remember the date because my third son Mike was born three weeks early on that day and I missed the birth because I was down in Hollywood to be on Larry King.)

Larry was so pleased that he wanted us to do the show again and called me to do it. I agreed but predicted DelDotto would decline, which is what happened. Then, on February 22, 1992, long after the 1992 presidential campaign had begun, Larry asked Perot that famous question. Since then, Larry no longer has little people like me on as guests. If you could get a chronological list of his guests, you would see a stark jump in degree of celebrity status after the Perot appearance. Apparently, the TV viewing world was so impressed by his launching of Perot that they tuned in to see what was happening on that show. Larry was Perot’s political meal ticket and Perot was Larry’s big break.

Let me summarize this to make sure you understand it. In late February 1992, as a result of a casual question by Larry King on his TV show, a brand new third party spontaneously erupted and nominated a candidate who was leading all other candidates in the polls until he dropped out of the race!!! And he was more or less a one-issue candidate: balancing the budget.

[Note: My wife and I and a number of other Harvard MBA students had supper with Ross Perot in 1977. I was co-president of the Harvard Business School New Enterprise Club so I sat directly across from him and got a lot of one-on-one conversation. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and I of the U.S. Military Academy. He tried to get me to bet on that year’s Army-Navy Game with him. I told him my heart was with Army on game day but my head, educated on sound investments at Harvard, was not about to bet on a severe underdog for sentimental reasons. At that time, Perot was a billionaire and as far as we knew, the only one in the world. The famous Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the world had not yet been created. In other words, when we had supper with him, he was the Bill Gates of the era.]

The green movement is really the red movement in disguise

The new book Superfreakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner tells two quick, cheap ways to end global warming. I saw the authors interviewed in person at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco and on various TV shows.

Garden hose to the sky and puffy clouds solutions

According to the results of what I call an unethical experiment, we can lower the temperature of the earth by 1 degree fahrenheit, the amount by which it heated up during the entire 20th century, by putting sulfur dioxide into the high atmosphere.

An unethical experiment is one that no ethical human would have initiated, but which gets initiated accidentally or by nature. For example, much of what we knew about the brain before World War II came from study of persons who survived severe brain injuries, like a javelin that accidentally went through their head. Doctors could see the part of the brain the javelin went through and test the person in question to see how their brain function had changed. Another is identical twins being separated at birth which helps identify human characteristics that stem from DNA versus how you were raised.

In the case of chapter 5 of Superfreakonomics, the unethical experiment was the eruption of volcanoes. We know that after big volcano eruptions, the earth cools. We also know it’s because volcano eruptions hurl sulfur dioxide into the high atmosphere. The sulfur dioxide reflects about 1% of the sun’s heat rays away from earth.

Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer at Microsoft, says we can artificially create the volcano cooling by putting an 18-mile long long “garden hose” at the north and south poles that goes straight up to the stratosphere and pumps liquefied sulfur dioxide into the high altitude air. Yes, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. But the amount coming out of the “garden hose” would be a tiny fraction of one percent of the amount normally produced by natural and man-made sources. The difference is getting it up into the stratosphere rather than the troposphere, the layer at the earth’s surface.

Puffy white clouds

Clouds also reflect the sun’s heat away from earth, thereby lowering earth’s temperature. There’s plenty of data on that unethical experiment, too.

Can humans make more clouds? Sure. Ever seen the contrails of a jet? The grounding of most U.S. jets after 9/11 for just three days raised the earth’s temperature a measurable amount by reducing the contrails.

The cheaper way to make clouds is to spray salt water out in the middle of the oceans a few yards up in the air. It then rises on its own up to cloud level. Myhrvold proposes doing that with a fleet of wind-powered boats that would cost a few billion total.

Reaction of the green movement

Al Gore’s reducing-carbon solution is questionable as to its effectiveness. Plus it would take hundreds of years to work. Carbon dioxide is a tiny fraction of one percent of the atmosphere. Myhrvold’s approaches are proven and would work immediately. Plus, they cost next to nothing compared to cap and trade taxes.

So the stop-global-warming people are thrilled with Myhrvold and Superfreakonomics, right?

Au contraire. They reacted with green road rage. Levitt discussed it extensively at the Fairmont.

Why? I thought they wanted to save the planet?

Apparently not. What they want is a way to jerk capitalists around. They hate the garden hoses to the sky and boats that make puffy clouds solutions because they do not let them jerk capitalists around for 400 years.

OOgo Chavez gets biggest applause at Copenhagen ‘climate change’ summit

At the 12/09 Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Summit, Hugo Chavez, the nutty quasi dictator of Venezuela got huge applause. What new scientific data did he provide? Why was he even there at all?

He said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships.” [Rousing round of applause]

[There was a] “silent and terrible ghost in the room” [a ghost called capitalism] [even louder applause]

“our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” [standing ovation]

The green movement is the red movement in disguise

Like I said, the green movement is nothing but the red movement in disguise. If you pay attention, the truth leaks out in unguarded moments—especially when they gather in large groups and feed off each other. The anti-climate change movement is supposed to be scientific. So how come its conference looks, indoors and out, like the Socialists Workers Party Convention?

Because it is.

Nathan Myhrvold, a respected scientist, has come up with cheap instant solutions to the alleged problem. So why aren’t the global hot air people thrilled to death? Why aren’t they at least calling for trying his solutions to see if they work?

Because they have no interest in the physical planet. They are only interest in controlling the planet politically.

Obama’s stash

Obama promised the Copenhagen meeting $100 billion to help poor countries cut their emissions.

Where’s he gonna get that? His stash

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

Follow-up to this article which was originally written when it was announced that Obama had won the peace prize.

It is safe to say the Nobel committee wishes it had never given the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama.
They were deservedly ridiculed worldwide for awarding it to a guy who did nothing to earn it.
He refused to participate in the various award ceremony activities that other winners traditionally have gratefully participated in namely,

  • dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee
  • a press conference
  • a television interview
  • appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as
  • a visit to an exhibition in his honor at the Nobel peace center
  • lunch with the King of Norway

  • He used his speech to talk down to the Nobel committee as if they did not know that evil exists, diplomacy is not always enough, that their awarding him the prize did not have any effect on his willingness to surge the war in Afghanistan.

    Normally, such an aceptance speech would be interrupted by applause repeatedly. I believe Obama was only interrupted by applause once at the Nobel ceremony: when he reminded the audience of his pledge to close Guantanamo. He did not remind them that he reneged on that pledge. Gitmo was supposed to close 12/31/09. It will not. It is the best, newest American prison. The inmates themselves probbaly would prefer to be there than in any oter U.S. prison.

    That applause line also included condemnation of America for torture and patting himself on the back for ending it, but he did not mention continuing rendition or shipping prisoners to countries who have no qualms about torturing prisoners.

    In short, his response to being awarded the prize was to bite the hand that fed it to him and poke a stick in their eye. Explain to me again how this guy is a great politician. He has a gift, Harry, it’s a gift for pissing off his supporters while simultaneously keeping his opponens as pissed off at him a they always were.

    Should not have been a surprise

    In my book How to Manage Residential Property For Maximum Cash Flow and Resale Value, I talk at length about firing employees. One important point I made is that it should never come as a surprise to the person being fired.

    If they commit an egregious offense, that calls for one-strike-and-you’re-out firing, like being drunk on duty, the fact that such an offense was one-strike should have been made known to the employee when they were hired.

    If, on the other hand, they are being fired for an accumulation of substandard performances, they should have been warned privately that their performance needed to be improved or they were going to get fired. I had a salaried leasing agent once who never rented an apartment. My other leasing agent was leasing apartments. I warned that non-leaser than although she was not on commission, a zero batting average was unacceptable. She did not improve it and I fired her, which she deemed “unfair.”

    Nobel prizes should not come as surprises

    The same is true of Nobel prizes. The announcement of a winner should not surprise anyone who is reasonably well informed.

    The announcement that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize did surprise everyone, including Obama himself.

    The reason it came as a surprise is that Obama did virtually nothing that would have caused anyone to speculate that he might get it.

    To his credit, Obama said he did not deserve the prize. I agree. Although, I could have done without the humility angle on the did-not-deserve comment. He did not deserve it because he did nothing to earn it, not because of his general unworthiness to be in the company of the other prior winners.

    The Nobel Committee seemed to say they awarded it to him because of his various speeches advocating world peace. So award it to the Miss America Pageant. Their contestants all advocate world peace (and ending hunger) every year.

    Nominated in February

    Obama was nominated for the prize on February 1, 2009. Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009.

    The implication is that he was nominated for the prize for his actions during an 11-day period right after inauguration. What? Announcing that he was going to close Guantanamo by the end of the year—a promise since withdrawn?

    Based in part on explanatory statements by the Nobel committee, they gave him the award to help him succeed in future peace efforts. So the Nobel Prize committee is like the U.S. media: in the tank for Obama and trying to propagandize the public to supporting their guy.

    Limbaugh also said they seem to be trying to influence him to run American foreign policy hereafter in accordance with the wishes of the leftist intellectuals who vote on the prize.

    Both explanations seem reasonable. He sure as heck did not get it for anything he has done which is the only proper criterion for such an award

    Past winners

    Nobel prizes awarded in the hard sciences have a well-deserved stellar reputation. However, the Nobel prizes awarded in soft subjects, like economics, peace, and so on, are subjective and political. Here are some other Nobel Peace Prize winners

    Peace Prize winner John T. Reed comment
    Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Climate change is a fraud and in any event it is unrelated to peace; obviously just a political statement by leftist intellectuals
    U.N. and Kofi Anan
    The U.N. should either win it every year or never. Peace is their job description. Kofi Anan was thoroughly corrupt and no one can name anything he did related to peace that was extraordinary or effective. He was just another empty suit U.N. secretary general.
    Yasser Arafat
    For what? Most improved terrorist?
    Desmond Tutu
    Nice guy but they said it was for his work against Apartheid, that’s civil rights not peace
    Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho
    These guys were the U.S. and North Vietnam delegates to the peace talks on the Vietnam war; The Nixon Administration was trying to extricate itself from the war and not look too bad in the process; Tho was trying to win the war by military force and just using the peace talks as a ruse to accomplish that; Tho refused to accept the prize; the world was generally outraged that Kissinger was awarded and accepted it because he had been part of the escalations of the war previously

    Tighten the criteria

    I am not suggesting they abolish the Nobel Peace Prize. Rather, they need to tighten the criteria for awarding it. Some years, they have not awarded it to anyone. They need to do that more often. In 1906, they awarded it to Teddy Roosevelt who hosted the peace talks and drew up the peace agreement that ended the war between Russia and Japan. That was an appropriate award. Jimmy Carter, who is a horse’s ass in general, should have gotten it in 1978 for doing what Teddy did only between Egypt and Israel. Carter did get it later in 2002 as a sort of lifetime achievement award. My take on him is that he never got over losing the 1980 election to Reagan and has since spent his life trying to prove the American people were wrong to reject him. His greatest success while president was arguably the Egypt peace agreement, so he keeps trying to reprise that event like has-been actress Norma “All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up” Desmond in the 1950 movie Sunset Boulevard.

    We have elected a president of the United States who is a sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder. I fear he will get us into World War III either by weakness or by falling prey to a need to prove his manhood because of his total lack of military or foreign policy experience. Michelle Obama said her husband is overconfident. He seems to think he can schmooze and mediate all of the bad guys in the world into behaving. He can’t. He wasn’t even successful with a Harvard professor and a Cambridge cop. The Nobel Committee is encouraging him to continue believing that. The awarding of the Nobel Prize to him is not useful and is likely to encourage him in his dangerous delusions and encourage him to be biased against sometimes necessary military action in dealings with deadly enemies.

    Global warming

    It would take an encyclopedia to cover the global-warming debate. I will not write that much, but I want to go on record about it to an extent.

    Definition

    The phrase “global warming” suggests nothing more than a series of scientific temperature readings. But thanks to Al Gore and others, it has taken on a much larger, political meaning, namely,

    The earth is rapidly getting catastrophically warmer because of increased burning of fossil fuels by humans and emergency laws must be passed to reduce that burning of fossil fuels to Nineteenth Century levels.

    Warming?

    Is the earth warming? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the temperature of the earth rose a total of .6 degrees Celsius between 1900 and 1999. .6 degrees Celsius is 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s the total, cumulative 100-year change, not the annual change.

    Like many, I wonder how they measure that, and where. If they use a rectal thermometer, my guess is they stick it in Mogadishu.

    And excuse me, but how is a 1.08 increase in temperature over 100 years an emergency or even noteworthy?

    ‘Climate change’

    After being embarrassed by numerous incidents of cold weather, the leftists changed the name of global warming to “climate change.” Now they get to bitch about and say “we told you so” in response to any weather other than average. My Harvard Business School classmate, Orit Gadiesh, is head of Bain and famous for the comment, “The average person has one tit and one ball.” There’s also the old chestnut that you can drown in a pond with an average depth of six inches. As any bell curve graph of data can confirm, if you get to use all data other than average to gain political power, you will be powerful indeed.

    It’s always warming or cooling

    In his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, ABC 20/20 reporter John Stossel reproduces a graph of the earth’s average temperatures for the last 4,000 years. The so-called global warming about which Al Gore is so excited is a barely visible, tiny uptick just before the end of the graph. It is the smallest movement up or down on the 4,000-year graph. Earlier periods show much bigger upward and downward movements. They also show that the earth’s temperature has never been stable. The global-warming movement would have you believe it has always been stable until SUVs.

    We did have a bunch of ice ages you know. The fact that they all ended indicates there must have been some big-time global warming back then, not just 1.08 degrees in 100 years. And most of that big-time global warming occurred before the human race existed, let alone before suburbanites began driving SUVs.

    You can probably find the graph on the Internet. It is from the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology in Boulder, CO.

    Man-made

    What about the notion that humans caused the 20th Century increase in temperature by driving cars more and having air-conditioning?

    According to page 202 of Stossel’s book, since half of the 1.08-degree increase in earth temperature came between 1900 and 1945, and the use of fossil fuels was low then and did not dramatically increase until the 1950s and thereafter, it would appear that the cause is not humans burning fossil fuels.

    Politics

    Liberals would have us believe global warming is scientific fact. If it is scientific fact, why is it a liberal/conservative debate? Liberals and conservatives are not scientists, they are political advocates.

    When politics gets involved, facts and truth go out the window.

    It has been well said that the green movement is really the red movement in a disguise. The red movement—Communism and socialism, class hatred, profit hatred, and all that—has been discredited by having been tried in numerous countries. One of the great stories of the last several decades is the collapse of Communist and socialist economies because it simply does not work, and the replacement of those economic systems with capitalist ones. Unprecedented capitalism-created prosperity now characterizes formerly socialist countries like Russia, Eastern Europe, China, India, and Vietnam.

    The emergence of the green movement now is an indication that the reds never were in favor of prosperity to begin with. They just hate those who win when competition, not politics, is the criterion as it is in free economies.

    So now they are claiming to be green to save the earth, just as they claimed to be red to save the “workers of the world” before. In fact, they were red, and are now green, to jerk around those who succeed when competition decides the winners.

    Global warming and the wider green movement is just a disguised effort to establish government control of much of the economy—the same sort of government control that socialism sought, obtained in many countries, then lost because of its massive failures.

    Columnist Thomas Sowell calls it “Global hot air.”

    6/26/09 Wall Street Journal article

    The 6/26/09 Wall Street Journal had an excellent article by Kimberly Strassel. It was titled “The Climate Change Climate Change.” It listed people who dispute the so-called “consensus” of scientists who agree with the leftists on man-made climate change. Here are the noteworthy persons and groups in the article who dispute the existence of man-made, deleterious, reversible climate change:

    Steve Fielding, Australian Senator
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
    89% of Czech people in polls
    Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France
    Claude Allegre, French Minister of Industry and Innovation and former global warming supporter who retracted that position
    The new parliament of New Zealand which promptly stopped the country’s cap and trade program
    700 scientists as counted by Senator Jim Inhofe (OK)
    Joanne Simpson, first female PhD meteorologist who revealed her opposition only after retiring out of fear for her job
    Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to U.N. climate report supporting global warming
    Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Norway
    54 physicists led by Princeton’s Will Happer who demanded that the American Physical Society reverse its position that global warming science is settled
    Dr. Ian Plimer, Australian geologist

    This is not a comprehensive list.

    Melting icebergs

    Global warming advocates say the higher temperatures will flood low-lying areas of the world including the coasts of the U.S.

    Let me be Mr. Wizard for a moment. Get a glass of water and add ice cubes until it is almost at the top of the glass. Let it melt, then see how much flooding (overflow out of the glass) occurred. As you will see, it will be zero.

    Why? Laws of physics.

    Ice is frozen water. When it freezes, water in the form of ice takes up more space than the water it is made up of. That’s why frozen pipes or soda bottles burst when they freeze. Icebergs occupy more space than the water they are made up of occupied before they froze or will occupy after they melt. That’s why ice floats. It is less dense than the water it is in.

    Furthermore, the tip of the iceberg that sticks above the water is precisely the amount of the increased volume. In other words, when the ice in your full glass of ice water melts, even though the ice stuck above the top of the glass, it will still precisely fill the glass, no less and no more.

    Like a boat, ice floats by displacing its weight in water. Since it is less dense than water, it goes to the surface. But when it melts, it becomes water again so it occupies precisely the same volume of water as it displaced when it was ice. Melting water changes (reduces) its volume, but not its weight. When it goes back to being water, it occupies the exact same volume as the water it displaced when it was ice, therefore there is no flooding.

    This applies to all floating ice including the entire Arctic (north) polar ice cap. The north pole has no land under it. Global warming advocates say the north polar ice pack will entirely melt in future summers. Whether it does or not will have no effect whatsoever on sea level. All of that water, whether in the form of ice or not, is already in the sea.

    Glaciers

    Glaciers and other ice and snow that are on land are another matter. When they melt and run into the sea, the sea levels can rise. That’s because they were not in the sea at all until they melted. Antarctica (South Pole) has some land under it.

    Carbon?

    The global warming people keep talking about carbon. How many tons of it we awful humans are putting into our air? Carbon offsets. etc.

    Carbon?

    Carbon is a black powder. Charcoal briquettes are carbon. It’s actually used to clean air in gas masks, kitty litter, and to clean water in filters.

    Global warming is caused mainly by water vapor (clouds) (Here is an article about that aspect of it. ) and to a slight extent by carbon dioxide. To talk about carbon dioxide as if it were the same as carbon is like talking about lightning bugs as if they were the same as lightning.

    Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless, non-poisonous gas. Plants need it to thrive. It comes out of your mouth and nostrils every time you exhale. Dry ice, which is white not black, is frozen carbon dioxide.

    By speaking of carbon dioxide as carbon, they make it sound like dirt. That’s dishonest.

    Components of air

    How much carbon dioxide is now in the air after 100 years of it increasing “catastrophically?”

    Would you believe 383 parts per million? European leftists were forming the number 350 with mobs of people in late 2009. Why? That’s what they want the number of parts per million of carbon dioxide reduced to. Why? It’s an excuse to take billions from corporations and spend it on their pet, and not cost-effictive, “alternative” energies.

    Air is about 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, .94% argon, 1 to 4% water vapor, and .04% carbon dioxide. See the Wikipedia article on it for more details.

    If you drew a pie chart of the components, carbon dioxide’s slice would be invisible unless the pie chart were enormous.

    Lawn watering

    The same liberals who are now out to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere are the ones who live in the city and got my suburban neighbors and I to pay punitive rates for the water we put on our lawns. Those lawns convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Those lawns remove carbon dioxide from the air. They remove “carbon” from the air if you want to play the “carbon dioxide = carbon” semantic game. Why are my suburban neighbors and I not getting medals for our fight against global warming instead of being punished for our cultivation of beneficial plants like grass?

    Drowning polar bears

    The claims that polar bears are drowning because they cannot swim to the increasingly-far-apart ice floes are ridiculous.

    The before and after aerial photos showing glaciers moving north only show hundreds of yards or a couple of miles movement. The polar bears wouldn’t even notice such things over 100 years. Plus they are not going to sit on a piece of ice until it gets out of sight of all other ice or the main ice pack. That has always been a danger to them throughout their existence, global warming or not. If the ice is really melting, all it will mean for polar pears is that they move north at an imperceptible rate over decades.

    The ‘right’ temperature

    Underlying all the global-warming doomsdayism is the notion that the temperature of the earth in 1900 was the “right” temperature.

    Says who? Based on what? Seems to me the right temperature, if humans are going to get into the business of setting the planet’s temperature, would be the one that produces the highest world-wide crop yield on land masses and the minimum need for heating and air-conditioning where humans live.

    Go continent by continent. The widest mass of land in South America is between the equator and 15º below the equator. Here is the complete list:

    Continent
    Latitude of greatest width
    South America equator to 15º south
    North America 30º north to 70º north
    Europe 45º north to 60º north
    Asia 25º north to 70º north
    Africa 5º north to 30º north
    Australia 15º south to 35º south
    Antarctica Forget about it. We’re not going to grow crops or live there

    As this table shows, the greatest earth land mass is between 25º and 70º north. OK. If we humans are going to decide the planet’s temperature, optimize those latitudes for growing crops and minimizing heating and air-conditioning cost.

    Would that, by great coincidence, be the temperature of the earth in 1900? I doubt it. Probably it would be a warmer temperature.

    In other words, the earth would likely better off if it were warmer. Maybe not the Maldives Islands, who recently held a government meeting in SCUBA gear underwater. But then dopes who build cities almost at sea level, or below sea level like New Orleans, deserve the floods they get.

    Permafrost turning to mud

    On 6/2/07, news accounts said that some Alaskan village built on permafrost was having trouble because the permafrost melted. The permafrost turned to mud. They had to build wooden sidewalks and the houses were tilting because the permafrost had been their “foundation.” So move. That was a stupid place to live to begin with, not unlike locating New Orleans on the Gulf of Mexico and below sea level.

    What’s more important, letting some strange people live in a village on top of a previously frozen swamp or growing more crops in Canada and Siberia?

    Never give a date

    Economists joke about their predictions that they frequently give a number or a date but never both.

    The idiot global-warming advocates should have followed that con-man advice. But they have given a number and a date. They say that widespread flooding and disaster will occur in 2020. That’s just 10 years away. I expect we will be done with them then as a result of their prediction not coming true.

    Global warming reminds me of the fall-out shelter craze of the 1950s and 1960s, the OPEC oil “crises” of the 1970s, and the millennium bug hysteria of the late 1990s. Its dupes are going to be embarrassed. Don’t be one of them. I have a couple of Web articles about the recurring prophets of doom in finance and other areas like food shortages, oil, population, and so forth at http://www.johntreed.com/doomsday.html.

    Religious discussion

    I generally do not get into religious discussions because there is no convincing the true believers to change their minds. Global warming is a religious discussion. That is, its advocates will listen to no logic or facts that do not support their position. But when religious nuts, whether they go to church or not, start to change public policy in ways that affect me, I have to speak up.

    8/13/07 Newsweek cover story about us ‘deniers’

    Newsweek used to be generally a great magazine with a well-deserved reputation. But global warming seems to cause yet another derangement syndrome and Newsweek is not immune. Let me just make some comments about the various call-outs in the article. A call-out is a brief summary quote as opposed to the main body of the article.

    Newsweek statement Reed response
    Swedish chemist quantified how much the earth was warming due to carbon dioxide emissions in 1896 chemists do not measure the earth’s temperature; 1896 science should hardly be a basis for Twenty-First century policy decisions
    Senator Al Gore holds hearings on climate change in 1988 patient zero
    an unnamed study says climate change was a factor in the extinction of Coast Rica’s golden toads “a factor?” That’s pretty weak. How sure are they? How much of a factor? What were the other factors? Should world policy be set by a Costa Rican toad? Species have been going extinct continuously since the beginning of time, including before humans existed. It’s not always our fault.
    Science and Environmental Policy Project pursues a media campaign to discredit evidence of global warming And the liberals are not pursuing a media campaign to credit evidence of global warming!? They won a freaking Oscar for their media campaign!
    North American tree swallows are laying their eggs an average of nine days earlier than they did in the late ’50s. The article does not say this is due to global warming or how the average date of egg laying relates to the late ’40s, late 60s, or late 20s. In other words, this is pure innuendo; a non-denial denial of the skeptics’ claims.
    Exxon gives several groups that question man-made global warming $19 million over the years So? Plenty of money is being given and spent on both sides. If Newsweek had evidence that the groups in question were lying, they should have presented that, not innuendo based on some vague notion that Exxon is evil per se. And that Exxon-haters are virtuous per se. Exxon is being accused of destroying the planet. They need to defend themselves.
    mentions record-breaking forest fire season and the hottest year on record in 1997 and 1998 So? The magazine does not offer any evidence or even a statement that either was related to global warming. More innuendo.
    Heat wave in 2003 kills 15,000 people in France alone expected to become more common in a greenhouse world No evidence or even statement that global arming caused by man-made carbon dioxide caused the heat wave. Begs the question of whether there is or ever will be a greenhouse world. Just says if there is a greenhouse world, such events will become more common. That is a conditional, tautological (by-definition) statement. Left unanswered is whether man-made warming caused the heat wave. They simply suggest such warming could cause similar events in the future.
    2005 Katrina prompts debate over whether hurricane was result of climate change More innuendo. No evidence or statement that Katrina was caused by man-made global warming. Absence of Katrina in 2004 and 2006 not cited as evidence of lack of global warming. It’s heads global warming advocates win and tails global warming skeptics lose. No matter what happens or doesn’t happen, it can be cited as evidence of global warming but not as evidence of lack of global warming.
    Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV demand that Exxon stop funding groups whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but effective climate-change-denial myth. In other words, stop the heresy. It is not protected by the First Amendment. No longer any need to prove global warming. Any skepticism about it is now officially a myth. Since when do we rely on politicians for scientific truth? Obviously, their constituents believe in global warming and they want to get re-elected.
    naysayers vs. consensus Over the years, the consensus said that the earth was flat, the universe revolved around the earth, trauma caused cancer, leeches would make you healthy by removing bad blood, Pluto was a planet, minorities and Jews were inferior, etc., etc.. Basically, the consensus has a poor track record and a bad reputation. Evidence is what matters. We do not take a poll to see what causes cancer.
    aerial photo of 1,255 square-mile ice area calving off into the ocean in Antarctica in 2002 No mention of whether any such thing every happened before Al Gore got hot on this subject.

    Newsweek also has an economics columnist: Robert Samuelson. Here, from his 2008 book The Great Inflation and its Aftermath, is his nice way of saying that global warming is dangerous bunk.

    …an uncritical reaction to the possibility of global warming that may cause us to undertake costly policies that, in the end, do little to affect global warming but do weaken our economy’s performance.

    He addresses global warming in detail on pages 237 to 242. He says about the same thing I do, although he tries to be more politically correct in his wording, I assume so he can keep his jobs at Newsweek and the Washington Post.

    One of Saumelson’s summary paragraphs on global warming says this,

    For now, anything that would sharply reduce the greenhouse gases requires shutting down large parts of the global economy…Measures short of that may be economically costly as well as ineffective. Only major technological advances can break the dilemma. Will we admit this? It seems doubtful. Our politics seem predisposed toward denial. We won’t admit the inconsistence, conflicts and simplicities of many appealing goals. We strive for the impossible and ignore the obvious.

    And here is a general comment about do-gooders:

    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 in The Cocktail Party, p.111)

    John T. Reed

    What Al Gore left out of his movie: the 800 year lag

    by Dan Reed

    Does CO2 have a strong effect on global temperatures? Al Gore shows a graph in his film An Inconvenient Truth where CO2 levels and global temperatures have a strong correlation to one another (based on the Vostok ice core samples). Both graphs are displayed on the big screen behind them, and he asks "Did they ever fit together?" Yes, Al, they definitely do fit together. He says the relationship is “complicated," but that the correlation shows that CO2 increases cause global temperature increases. That is certainly one possibility when you have a correlation, but it is not the correct conclusion in this case. If you zoom in on the graph, you find the exact opposite of Gore’s claim; the temperature change comes first, then the CO2 follows. CO2 changes in the graph lag 800 years behind the temperature changes.

    "The scientists working on the Vostok ice core report that temperature changes PRECEDE changes in CO2 concentration by about 800- to 1,300 years." (TucsonCitizen.com)

    In other words, the earth gets warmer first, and that warmth appears to cause CO2 levels go up, not vice versa as Gore asserts. It would be like trying to tell you ocean tides are responsible for the moon’s gravity. Gore has swapped cause and effect. This is the same data from the Vostok ice core research that Gore uses. Search for “Vostok ice core 800 year lag” yourself on the internet to see for yourself. The scientists that collected the data acknowledge the 800 year lag. So the very ice core samples that Al Gore cites as his evidence for why human carbon dioxide emissions are causing warming, in fact, show the exact opposite.

    Ice core samples show no evidence that CO2 causes global warming

    This phenomenon of temperature changes causing atmospheric CO2 changes is explained in many places online including a British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. The short explanation is global temperature affects the solubility of carbon dioxide in water. In other words, when global temperatures decrease, the oceans dissolve more CO2, lowering atmospheric CO2. When global temperatures increase, the oceans dissolve less CO2, raising atmospheric CO2. The documentary also shows a much better correlation to global temperatures than CO2, which I will discuss below. (Go to timestamp 35:00 in the video to see)

    What this means is the entire premise of An Inconvenient Truth is false. With a straight face, Al Gore shows you evidence that suggests heat increases CO2, but tells you the opposite. He just flat out lies about the details of the correlation that he cites as his powerful piece of evidence. The reason he gets away with this is because the x-axis of the graph cover over 600,000 years, so the 800 year lag is to miniscule to see with the naked eye. If you zoom in on the graph, the lag is clear.

    You don’t have to be a climatologist to grasp the fundamental fallacy of carbon dioxide’s relationship to the greenhouse effect and global temperatures. As my father pointed out above, and the Swindle documentary as well, water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas, yet most discussions of global warming never mention it. The Swindle documentary goes on to explain how so many scientists and journalists could miss such a glaring fact.

    Most importantly, the documentary finds a variable that correlates even closer to global temperatures than CO2, and in the correct direction. Any guesses on what the variable is? SOLAR ACTIVITY. Imagine that. That big ball of exploding fire in the sky is the biggest factor.

    -Dan Reed
    (dan@johntreed.com)

    The end of affirmative action

    We may be at the end of affirmative action. Why? Referenda, subprime lending, and the Obamas.

    Referenda

    Anti-affirmative action referenda have been passed or attempted in:

    • Arizona

    • California

    • Colorado

    • Florida

    • Michigan

    • Washington State

    I do not claim that is a complete list. I would appreciate a complete list if anyone knows where to get one.

    It is noteworthy that it is hard to get such legislation passed by legislators because they are afraid of pressure groups. Individual voters, however, are not susceptible to pressure groups. That’s why these laws are more likely to pass when voted on by all the people.

    Subprime

    The nation has recently suffered a stock market crash, collapse of huge financial companies, passed a humongous bailout and watched almost every country in the world suffer similar problems.

    Why?

    Because some politicians pushed mortgage lenders to lend to so-called subprime borrowers. Substandard would be a more accurate description. Disproportionately, the borrowers were the same groups who benefit from affirmative action in employment, awarding of contracts, and college and graduate school admissions. Subprime lending is affirmative-action mortgage lending.

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is the main government culprit. About 20% of subprime mortgages were made by mortgage lenders who came under the CRA. The CRA probably gave the idea of subprime loans to the other 80%.

    Most Americans did not care too much about affirmative action when it just kept their kid out of Harvard or made it easier for “disadvantaged” minorities to rent an apartment or buy a home. But when affirmative action destroys their retirement savings, gets them fired, and/or throws the world into a depression, affirmative action is done.

    It was always immoral: the institutionalization of the notion that two wrongs make a right. Namely, that it’s OK to discriminate against whites and Asians because blacks and Latinos were discriminated against in the past. That was bogus. But people let it continue.

    When it becomes dangerous, however, that’s another story. Wrecking the world economy is dangerous.

    The Obamas

    Michelle Obama says her high school guidance counselor discouraged her from applying to Princeton because her test scores were too low. She applied anyway and got in. So she showed them, huh? Actually, it was obvious affirmative action. She did not deserve to go to Princeton. She did not earn it. She got in to fill a black quota. Princeton’s admissions policies are racist.

    The Obama campaign said she got in as a “legacy” because her older brother had gone there as a basketball recruit. That’s a lie. Legacies are for the children of graduates, not siblings. Nowadays, probably just the children of prominent graduates. Legacies for all are long gone.

    There is not and never has been a legacy admission policy for siblings of recruited athletes. My oldest son went to Columbia, another Ivy League school, as a football player. His younger brothers got no legacy admissions to Columbia.

    Harvard Law School

    When Michelle wanted to go to Harvard Law School, she was once again told her test scores were too low. She went anyway. Once again, affirmative action. Harvard Law School’s admissions policies are racist.

    It happens that I applied to Harvard Law School in the winter of 1975-6. At the time I was an MBA student at Harvard. I applied for their four-year, joint Harvard MBA-JD joint program. Mitt Romney is a graduate of that program—a couple of years ahead of me. I got rejected. And I know it was not because of my LSAT score. My score was 99th percentile. For those not familiar with standardized test score percentiles, 99th is the highest possible percentile. Was I bumped aside by Michelle Obama’s black skin? Not per se. She bumped some other white man or woman about ten years later. But it is fair to suspect that I was bumped by the Michelle Obama of 1975.

    Michelle Obama was angry that the whites and Asians at Princeton and Harvard Law treated her and her black classmates as if they were charity cases.

    Perhaps if Michelle had been smart enough to get into those two schools on her merit rather than the color of her skin, she would be smart enough to know that charity cases is exactly what affirmative-action college and grad school admits are. Being treated like charity cases is exactly what should have happened to them.

    They ought to have to wear a scarlet A. Actually, they do. It’s their skin color not a letter. When people see a black student at Princeton or Harvard Law School, they know or strongly suspect that the person is an affirmative-action admit, which is too bad for the blacks and Latinos who actually deserve to be there.

    Michelle’s legal career

    Another test of the application of affirmative action to admit Michelle Obama instead a more qualified would-be lawyer is what kind of a lawyer did Michelle turn out to be?

    For sure, a short-lived one. I could not find the exact duration on the Internet, but the Obama campaign Web site has only this to say about her stay at the Sidley Austin law firm:

    …corporate law was not her calling…

    Actually, apparently no other kind of law was her calling either. She never attempted to practice law again. It is at least an even bet that she quit the legal profession so quickly after Harvard Law School because she sucked at it, not unlike the way she sucked at taking the Law School Admission Test. I expect that top law firms like Sidley Austin make extra efforts to recruit black lawyers, but I doubt they can tolerate weak job performance in such a competitive profession.

    And what of the more qualified white guy who got rejected by Harvard Law to make room for Michelle? Most likely, he went to a less competitive law school or to a selective one that is prohibited from engaging in affirmative action—like Boalt Hall at the University of California—and had a far more successful legal career than Michelle Obama. But Harvard Law met their black face quota in the year book and in Harvard Yard on graduation day, and that’s what’s important to them.

    Michelle’s career in Affirmative-Action Land

    And what happened to Michelle? She switched to non-profit jobs where skin color means as much as it does to non-profit Princeton and Harvard Law, namely, working for the Mayor of Chicago, various political charities, and finally the University of Chicago. How much does she make? $325,000 a year last I heard. I break that down as follows:

    $50,000 a year for being a Princeton/Harvard Law grad who no longer practices law—that is, what she would make if she were white

    $120,000 a year for combining black skin with preppy pearls and vocabulary

    $155,000 a year for being celebrity Barack Obama’s wife

    On Thursday, March 12, 2009 on the WRKO (Boston) Howie Carr show they repored that Michelle Obama’s $300k+ Chicago hospital position has not been refilled since she left for the White House (and possibly will not be, or at least not at the same pay level).

    What a surprise!

    I see no evidence in Michelle Obama’s biography that she ever achieved anything on merit in her life. When she stepped out of Affirmative-Action Land briefly, she quickly flopped, then scurried back into Affirmative-Action Land.

    Is First Lady an affirmative-action job? If she gets it, it will be because of the color of her father-in-law’s skin—so yes. Will a lousy performance as First Lady be overlooked because of her skin color? It depends on the nature of the lousy performance. Garden variety lameness will probably not be paid much attention to. If she resumes shooting her mouth off about the meanness of America or her not feeling any pride in her country until her husband was ahead in the polls, the American people will be extremely unhappy—perhaps to the point of firing her in 2012.

    Barack and affirmative action

    What about Barack?

    We know he is smarter than Michelle because, unlike her, he was not dumb enough to tell the world that his test scores were not good enough to get admitted to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law. Lots of people say he’s intelligent. Historian Michael Beschloss said on Don Imus’s show that Obama has the highest IQ of any U.S. president. Imus asked, “What is Obama’s IQ?” Beschloss said he did not know.

    How can he say Obama’s IQ is the highest without knowing the IQ of Obama and every prior president? He can’t. It’s just a guess based on Obama’s abilities as a smooth talker.

    I would not know whether Obama is smart, and neither will anyone else until he releases his SAT and LSAT scores and his high school and college transcripts. Don’t hold your breath.

    There is also the question of whether Michelle and Barack turned in adequate homework, classroom participation, and tests while in college and grad school. Affirmative action also is often applied to student performance by many professors.

    Black columnist, authhor, and Hoover Institute Fellow Thomas Sowell frequently complains that affirmative-action admissions for blacks puts them into academic situations where they fail at much higher rates than whites and Asians at those same schools. He says that damages their self-esteem and self-confidence unnecessarily, wastes their time and money, and usually results in their flunking out never to return there or to another college or graduate school where they would have graduated.

    Potential but no performance

    The fact that Michelle lacked the test scores to get in and the performance to succeed in the legal profession after graduation strongly suggests that Princeton and Harvard Law School let her slide academically. That may also be the case for Barack. He didn’t knock anyone dead either as a lawyer or a law school lecturer. People who worked with Obama consistently describe him in the fashion of a joke Brazilians like to tell about their country.

    Brazil has great potential and always will.

    People who knew him keep saying that Barack could have been as good as he wanted to be, but he never lived up to his potential because he never bore down and worked hard at, or even stuck with, anything. He is permanently like some early twenties college grad who is still trying to find himself. Everybody gave him a pass beccause of his charm and great public speaking ability, so he never bothered to do any more than be charming and make charismatic speeches, and adopt his father’s African first name rather than stick with the name Barry, which is what the President’s father called himself in the U.S. and what the president himself always went by until he started using his race “coupon” to get into selective colleges..

    Some would say I have no right to question their qualifications or student performance without proof. Yeah, I do. There is such a thing as affirmative action. Occidental, Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard Law are proud practitioners of it. Release your scores and grades if you are a “disadvantaged” minority and got into and graduated from those schools on merit rather than affirmative action. If you are unwilling to do that, wear your scarlet “AA.” You can’t have it both ways.

    They want it, but did not benefit from it themselves

    One of the great ironies of affirmative action is that blacks and Latinos spend great energy demanding it, then spend equal or greater amounts of energy swearing that they themselves were not beneficiaries of it. Yeah, right.

    And what about Barack’s career as a lawyer? Not much more than Michelle’s. He was an associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm that apparently specializes in black political law, for three years then he was “of counsel” for five years when his license to practice law became inactive. There is a definition of the phrase “of counsel” at Wikipedia. The normal measure of success in a law firm is getting promoted from associate to full partner. Obama never did that. Obama was ACORN’s lawyer while at that law firm, but I have never heard of any case that Obama argued, let alone won.

    The election of Barack Obama to the presidency is electoral affirmative action. As is characteristic of affirmative action, he neither earned, nor is qualified for, the position at this time, yet he has been given it. As Geraldine Ferraro correctly observed, if Obama were white, he would have been laughed out of the early primaries. If he were white, he would have gotten fewer votes than Dennis Kucinich. His blackness, such as it is, was sine qua non to his election, therefore: electoral affirmative action.

    Pilot

    Imagine Obama were a passenger on a full 747. The plane takes off 20 minutes late and hits some turbulence about 45 minutes into the flight. Obama stands up and addresses the passengers. Flashing his million-dollar smile and making full use of his charismatic speaking ability, he confidently alleges that the pilot is incompetent as evidenced by the late departure and the turbulence. He assures the passengers that he is a far better pilot and says that they should vote him to replace the pilot.

    A white passenger raises his hand and asks,

    “Are you a licensed pilot? If so, are you certified to fly 747s?”

    Obama: “I refuse to respond to racist smears.”

    White passenger: “It’s not racist. It’s an important, legitimate question.”

    Obama: “Would you have asked me that question if I were white?”

    Black passengers nod as if to say, “Been there, experienced that.”

    White passengers look down at their shoes remembering that blacks have often been unfairly treated in U.S. history.

    They vote. Obama wins. He takes over the flying and the plane crashes killing all aboard because Obama did not have a pilot’s license and never learned how to fly a 747.

    Some will say being a pilot is not the same as being a president. Well, there have been two people who were both pilots and presidents, both named George Bush. I am sure they would tell you that being president is far harder than flying a plane.

    The main difference between being a pilot and being a president is that when the plane crashes, we know whose fault it was. But when government crashes, the various members of it all endlessly point fingers at each other. Because of the lack of clear lines of responsibility in government, no one is ever held accountable—or they are held accountable for things they did not have exclusive control over.

    What we do know is that an incompetent president can do great harm to the country and the world. What we also know is that Obama has far less pertinent training and experience than any president in history—almost no pertinent training or experience.

    Unfairly taints the talented blacks and Latinos

    Some blacks and Latinos do earn admission and graduation on merit—like the one black who got admitted to Boalt Hall in California after affirmative action was banned by referendum. He want to Harvard or some such instead because he did not want to be the only black at Boalt Hall Law School. I admire and commend him for his Cal admission, but it is certain that his real accomplishments will be discounted by most people—including those of his own race—because they will assume he was an affirmative-action charity case. Affirmative action unfairly taints the genuine accomplishments of all blacks and Latinos in those realms where affirmative action is applied. That’s a shame, but apparently a self-inflicted one.

    Diminishes black incentive to study or work hard

    In his 2008 book The Logic of Life, Tim Harford has a chapter he calls “The Dangers of Rational Racism.” Among other things, he says affirmative action has hurt the motivation of favored students. They slack off in their efforts compared to ambitious whites and asians because they calculate they only need decent grades and their skin to get admitted. Studying hard became “acting white” and was condemned and socially punished by minority peers. Unintended perhaps, but not surprising consequences of affirmative action.

    Same applies to getting and keeping affirmative-action jobs. When I was in the Army in the 1970s, my roommate, another Army lieutenant, worked in an office with some civilians. One was a huge black woman who rarely came to work and was surly to the boss. When they tried to discipline her, she said, “I’m black and I’m civil service so you can’t do nothing to me.” As far as I know, no one ever tried.

    When I was a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s, parents of girls and discriminated-against minorities told their children they had to work twice as hard as a white man to get the same success. They did not think that was fair, but neither did they whine about it. They just told their daughters and minority sons to get their noses to the grindstone. Then, in the late 60s and early 70s, new black leaders said, essentially, screw that. Fight for equality. Demand equality.

    They tried race riots in the summer of 1967. Those devastated the black communities in question. To this day you can still see the scars in those cities and see the financial effects in the form of uninsured small stores that charge high prices—combat pay for their owners and employees.

    Affirmative action lasted longer—until now I am arguing in this article.

    Affirmative action is a form of regulation. As explained in the 2008 book The Gridlock Economy, the best level of regulation is the Goldilocks level: not too much and not too little, just right. Affirmative action is too much. The nation either has, or is about to, realize that.

    Unprepared for statewide office elections

    The 11/6/08 Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on yet another adverse effect on blacks of affirmative action.

    Running for president almost requires previously holding statewide office. Relatively few blacks have run for president in part because relatively few blacks have held statewide office. Blacks are underrepresented compared to their percentage of the population (13.4%) in the U.S. Senate and governorships. There have only been three post-Reconstruction black senators counting Obama and there have only been two black governors: Doug Wilder in VA and Duvall Patrick in MA.

    Why is that?

    There are black cities, congressional districts, and counties, but no black states.

    In addition, the U.S. Justice Department has interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that they should push for gerrymandering of districts so as many as possible have black majorities. That makes it easier for blacks to get elected—IN THOSE DISTRICTS. But it also enables black candidates in those districts to ignore the white voters in those districts. That, in turn, causes almost all black candidates to run on the typical black-grievances-against-whites agendas. A lot of the trouble Obama had in the recent election stemmed from his embracing the black-grievances agenda of Wright, Farrakhan, and Flager and the radical chic agenda of Hyde Park in order to get elected in the South Side of Chicago district.

    So how did Obama get elected U.S. Senator from Illinois? His Democrat primary opponent self-destructed as a result of a sex scandal during the primaries. During the general election, his Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, also self-destructed as a result of a sex scandal when his sealed divorce records were leaked then officially released during the campaign. Ryan and his wife had their divorce records sealed by mutual agreement. Their release came as a result of lawsuits in Los Angeles by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago radio station WLS. I guess we can surmise that the Trib and WLS were not Ryan supporters.

    Ryan had gotten divorced from Jeri Ryan, his wife and the character “Seven of Nine” on the TV series Star Trek Voyager. In other words, Obama had no hope of winning the U.S. Senate Democrat primary or general election until the two sex scandals. Obama reneged on a promise to not use the divorce records. In other words, Obama’s winning a U.S. Senate seat was extremely anomalous.

    In most other cases, blacks have trouble making the transition from out-blacking competing candidates in black districts, gerrymandered or natural, to win Democrat primaries or general elections to win statewide offices, namely governorships and U.S. Senate seats. In other words, by “helping” blacks win local, county, and Congressional seats by letting then cheat through gerrymandering, the do-gooders and affirmative-action pushers have handicapped black candidates who want to win the votes of mixed-race statewide or national electorates.

    Affirmative action has become the equivalent of training wheels that are never removed, thus making blacks the equivalent, in many ways, of people who never learned how to ride a bike. It is long past time to remove the training wheels from black achievement. The subprime disaster and election of Obama may bring that about now.

    Relinquishment of the moral high ground

    When I was a kid in rural Delaware in the 1950s and earl 1960s, I went to a segregated school and attended movies at a theater where blacks had to sit in the balcony. In the south, blacks could not eat at the same restaurants or drink from the same water fountains or use the same public rest rooms, among other things.

    Those things were wrong. Blacks protested and did so from the moral high ground. That moral high ground was crucial to their ultimate victory over segregation and discrimination.

    But it turned out that most blacks were not morally superior to the whites who imposed segregation and racial discrimination. Indeed, those blacks were equally morally inferior. They did not want to end the wrongs, they merely wanted to turn the tables and become the oppressors rather than the oppressees.

    The euphemisms they used for their discrimination oppressions were “affirmative action” and “minority set-asides.” The euphemisms they used for their re-segregation efforts were “Congressional Black Caucus,” “Historically black colleges,” “Black studies,” “Black student unions,” “Black graduations”, “Black culture,” and others. They hated being prevented from sitting at white lunch counters, yet they now segregate themselves at all-black lunch tables in high schools and colleges all over the U.S. It apparently was not racial separation they resented, but just not being the ones who initiated the separation.

    I got this idea while watching a talk by Shelby Steele on C-Span on 11/8/08. I am not sure that’s what he said, but it matters not who said it. It is what happened in the U.S. in the last 50 years, culminating in Obama’s presidential election.

    Thomas Sowell says racism is wrong and putting it “under new management” [affirmative action] did not change that.

    Sanford and Son

    I saw a pertinent episode of Sanford and Son once. That 1970s TV sitcom featured black comedian Redd Foxx as a junk yard owner. Desmond Wilson played his son.

    In one episode, the father needed major surgery. The episode consisted entirely of his trying to get his initial assigned surgeon—a black doctor—changed. Why? Sanford did not want some affirmative-action surgeon cutting him open. He wanted a real surgeon—a white or Asian doctor.

    As I said above, affirmative action can be dangerous when it allows unqualified people to borrow mortgages—or get professional licenses—or run the free world. And whites and Asians are not the only ones able to recognizing that.

    Obama as president

    Let’s move on to the possibility of an Obama presidency. I have not heard any blacks publicly express misgivings about Obama being president based on how he might hurt them if he wins, then screws it up. But I have no doubt that behind closed doors, when no whites are around, some blacks are expressing concern that Obama may win, take office, then screw the job all up and set blacks back decades as a result.

    Is that what will happen?

    Guaranteed.

    How can I say that?

    Easy.

    1. All presidents fail to an extent

    2. Whoever is elected president in 2008 is going to inherit an intractable, worldwide economic crisis.

    3. Obama has almost no training or experience for the job.

    4. Obama has ensured his failure by promising more than anyone can deliver.

    5. Obama himself apparently believes he is incompetent.

    6. Obama has tacitly approved the notion that he is John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

    Failures of all recent presidents

    Here is a list of president since I was in college and their failures:

    President Failures
    Nixon Vietnam, price controls, gas lines, Watergate, Impeachment, resignation
    Ford inflation, recession, (Joke was that Ford’s economic and energy plan was to buy a car then park it in your garage and never use it), pardoned Nixon
    Carter worst inflation ever in U.S., “malaise,” Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, windfall profits tax on oil companies
    Reagan

    caused S&L debacle and gazillion-dollar bailout by deregulating, signed Tax Reform Act of 1986 which traded real estate passive loss limits desired by Democrats for low 28% top rate that has since been taken back by the Dems, Iran-Contra scandal, Lebanon military intervention and retreat, War on Drugs, Challenger disaster, Immigration amnesty law

    George H.W. Bush broke promise of no new taxes (“Read my lips”)
    Clinton Hillary health care initiative, Whitewater scandal, disbarred, impeached, multiple sex scandals, let Osama get away, lost Democrat control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, sleazy pardons, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy on gays in military, travelgate, Blackhawk down, troopergate
    George W. Bush Iraq, Afghanistan, 2008 economic collapse and stock market crash, social security reform, No Child Left Behind, immigration, deficit, subprime crisis, medicare prescription benefit, Katrina, stem-cell research, North Korea nuke

    A reader said I did not give Reagan his due. I did too. Remember, this is only a list of failures. I did not say he and the others had no successes. They all had some successes. This discussion is only about failures.

    Winner’s curse

    There is a phrase in the mathematics of bidding: the winner’s curse. It refers to the fact that the winning bidder at an auction often has bid too much and is overpaying for the thing purchased. In this election, it has a different meaning. Whoever wins the 2008 presidential election will be stuck with a catastrophic economic situation. Furthermore, it is a worldwide crisis which means it is beyond the powers of the president to solve it. It is also unprecedented, so the expertise to solve it does not exist in anyone, let alone the two candidates, neither of whom knows squat about economics or finance.

    Obama will try to blame it all on the “failed Bush policies.” The public and media will give him about 100 days to do that. Afterwards—the remaining 1,360 days of his administration, the public will regard the recession or depression as the new president’s fault. Is that fair? It is if you replay their campaign assurances that they were the ones who could fix it. The guy who gets inaugurated in January, 2009 will be the 21st century Herbert Hoover and there is nothing he can do about it.

    The solution to economic problems is to encourage the market in every possible way. Obama will try the opposite initially. He will increase taxes on capital gains and successful businesses and executives. That will deepen and prolong the recession or depression. Every time Obama cynically chases more votes with his Marxist rhetoric about going after big corporations and their executives and capital gains he scares away the very leaders and investors who are the only hope to restore a strong economy.

    No training or experience

    The best prepared president in the 20th century was George H.W. Bush—better known as “Bush the First” or Bush “senior.” He was the youngest U.S. naval pilot in history—a World War II torpedo bomber pilot who was shot down by the Japanese and rescued by a U.S. submarine. He graduated from Yale then was a successful businessman in the Texas oil industry. He was a Congressman, Director of the CIA, the first U.S. envoy to China since World War II, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and two-term vice president under Ronald Reagan. Predictably, he was also the most successful president in the last hundred years.

    Barack Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in the entire history of the U.S. Compared to the failed presidents listed above, he has almost zero useful experience. Those guys were governors or former vice presidents. Indeed, he has no pertinent training and only the briefest, most undistinguished experience as an Illinois state senator who voted “present” a lot and as a U.S. senator who was given a rare committee chairmanship in spite of being a rookie, then never held a single committee hearing. What he has mainly done as a legislator is neglect his duties while campaigning for higher office.

    He was a part-time teacher of constitutional law for 12 years, but his recently broadcast interview on the Constitution—recorded before he became a national figure—indicates his main interest in the Constitution is in finding fault with it, the judges who interpret it, and the people who wrote it for their failure to incorporate “economic justice” and “redistribution of wealth” Marxist principles.

    Obama has ZERO experience in the following aspects of the duties of the President:

    • foreign policy

    • national security

    • finance

    • economics

    • managing subordinates

    • large organizations

    • civil and criminal justice

    • labor

    • agriculture

    • health care

    • housing

    • transportation

    • energy

    • k-12 or college education

    • military or veterans

    His supporters will say that he will have advisors. No doubt, but the problem is he does not know enough to know whom to select for advisers. He will have advisers on which advisers to get advice from.

    He will get conflicting advice as all presidents do. Because he has no experience, he will not know how to choose which of the conflicting advisors to listen to, or to go with some of one‘s advice and some of another’s, or whether to reject all of them.

    Because of his lack of training or experience, he will get pushed around and conned by advisers, Congress, lobbyists, military brass, and by domestic and foreign enemies.

    See my article on the lack of validity to the “he has advisers” argument.

    Rookie

    All the adults reading this have been rookies at least once in their lives. I have been a rookie 10 or twelve times because I tried many different careers. You can see it in the 81 books I have written. When you and I were rookies, we screwed up. We had to guess at how to do things. We asked others what to do or how to do it and—in retrospect—recognize that we sometimes asked, and relied upon, the wrong people. When it came to managing people, we were initially too lenient, too willing to accept excuses for substandard performance. We got pushed around and taken advantage of by suppliers, vendors, bosses, co-workers, etc.

    Obama himself has been a rookie a couple of times. He ran for Congress in Chicago and got beat by the then and still incumbent, a convicted felon ex-convict. He was a rookie “community organizer” and held meetings that no one in the community attended.

    Being a rookie president of the United States is no different except for two things:

    • The stakes could not be higher.

    • Obama will be in a super fishbowl where his every word, action, and inaction will be evaluated microscopically where the other end of the microscope is occupied by tens of thousands of the world’s top experts on the subject in question as well as hundreds of thousands of political enemies who will twist or magnify or whatever to make Obama look bad.

    Thinking back to your rookie time, how would you have fared under such scrutiny and pressure? Obama is gifted at schmoozing, reading a teleprompter, and basking in the adulation of his cult followers. But that is not enough to get him through the presidency. He is also pretty good at bluffing as evidenced by the fact that he got elected president. But they taught us at West Point to never bluff because if you do you will inevitably be found out and you will lose all credibility with your subordinates. Obama never learned that lesson. Indeed, at Harvard Law School I surmise they teach the exact opposite. So Obama, and we, are in big trouble as a result of his election to the presidency.

    Promising more than you deliver

    Suppose he is a brilliant student of the presidency and somehow manages to do a good job in comparison to other presidents. He will still be considered a failure.

    Why?

    There is only one way to do a good job and still have people unhappy with you. That is to promise more than you deliver. Has Barack done that? Is the Pope Catholic?

    Obama has promised everything to everyone. Energy independence via mostly renewable sources that do not yet make economic sense. Free money for college. “Tax cuts” or plain old $5,000 gifts for 95%. Health insurance for everyone. More Army and Marine troops. Fix the world economy. End climate change. There is no hope that he or anyone else could keep all those promises. He cynically figures he can promise anything and everything to get elected, then bullshit his way out of keeping those promises after he gets elected. That is actually the only significant mistake George H.W. Bush made.

    This is another manifestation of the winner’s curse. Obama bid for the presidency by promising more than any presidential candidate in history. After inauguration day, the American people will essentially say, “OK, winning bidder, pay up.” He cannot.

    There is a feeling among whites that if Obama gets elected, that’s it. Blacks will then have gotten everything there was to get. No more free passes for skin color. And that’s if he has a successful presidency!

    In fact, he has no chance of having a successful presidency. When he fails, the non-black population will be very angry and will end affirmative action throughout our society. Blacks will have been disarmed on the subject by Obama’s failure as president. Some things, like lending trillions of dollars, surgery, and the presidency of the U.S., are important, potentially dangerous matters. They are not places to be screwing around pretending that “disadvantaged” minorities are qualified for loans or licenses or jobs that many of the individuals in question are, in fact, not qualified for.

    Obama himself thinks he is incompetent

    Obama himself appears to believe, or at least fear, that he is incompetent at managing. What evidence is there of that? He is 47 years old. He has somehow avoided ever being in a job where you could measure his performance in all that time. His resume sounds like that of a person in his early twenties only it lasts for 27 years instead of the five that people normally spend in their early twenties. He seems to have existed in a sort of Never-Never Land where he never has to get a job more suitable for a 26-year old or older man.

    After college, he worked for a year editing a couple of international business newsletters in NYC. That was the only job he ever had in the for-profit sector. Then he worked for a do-gooder, non-profit, charity-funded organization in also in New York City where he went to college. That’s fine for his age at the time: 22 to 25.

    What has he done since then? Part-time “Community organizer,” part-time law school lecturer, part-time lawyer, part-time state senator, and absentee U.S. senator. Jack of all non-profit activities; master of none.

    Other would-be presidents have tried to get their ticket punched with the most impressive jobs they could. Mitt Romney is one of the best examples. He prepared to be president and tried to prove he was well qualified by getting degrees from Harvard Business and Harvard Law—similar to Obama who has a Harvard Law degree. But then Romney also made $500 million managing Bain Capital’s private equity funds, turned around the scandal-ridden Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and was a two-term governor of Massachusetts.

    George W. Bush got a Harvard MBA, worked in the oil business, ran the Texas Rangers baseball team, and was a governor of Texas.

    Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, graduated from Yale Law School, was attorney general and governor of Arkansas.

    Reagan, Bush the 1st, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry all served on active duty in the military during wars—and they apparently did so deliberately to burnish their resumes for later political campaigns.

    What has Obama done deliberately to get ready to run for president? Avoid ever having a job where people could see whether he was worth a shit. He never had to meet a payroll or make a profit. He never led men in combat. He never was a mayor or a governor or a school principal or a government administrator. He never coached a team even as a volunteer youth coach. Never negotiated a contract. He never argued a legal case to a verdict that I know of.

    He never did anything where a measurable result could be seen and evaluated by the press or the public or the others who worked for him or with him. His voting record says what it says but he has a zillion explanations of what it does not mean what it says. Too much of his “voting record” says “present” or “not present.” If he thought he could have gotten away with it, he would have missed every vote. Indeed, he mainly lost in his run for Congress because he missed votes on gun control when he was in the IL senate. He has assiduously refused to put himself where he had to do anything other than schmooze and charm people in casual conversation or make speeches.

    Why? Logic suggests it is because he fears that he would fail or knows that he would fail.

    In fact, no presidential candidate in history other than Obama has ever dared even consider running for president before getting varied and extensive experience—and showing voters what he could do—through a significant series of the most responsible jobs possible.

    Well, guess what? The presidency is all the jobs Obama has so diligently avoided wrapped into one and then some. The best measure of Obama twisted selfishness and sociopathic disregard for others is that he knows he is incompetent, yet he has no qualms whatsoever about stepping into the Oval Office and trying to bluff his way through his first-full-time job, his first position managing others—at incalculable danger to the U.S. and the Free World.

    Is schmoozing and making speeches part of being president? Absolutely. It’s an important part. But it’s only about 10% of the job. The other 90% is making policy decisions; recruiting, training, and retaining good subordinate managers; counseling and firing bad managers; and getting millions of subordinates to execute ad hoc jobs like responding to a crisis and routine jobs like caring for veterans, maintaining parks, and investigating federal crimes. Obama has zero training or experience at any of that. He will fail at those tasks as a result. And the nation will be hurt, perhaps seriously, by those failures.

    President John F. Kennedy said the president made no easy decisions—only hard ones. He said all the easy decisions had been made at lower levels. The lower level government guys only passed the buck on the toughest decisions up to the President.

    What’s Obama going to do when people start coming into the Oval Office asking him to make real, life-or-death decisions. Go back to doing cocaine which was how he dealt with the “trauma” of contemplating having a black father and a white mother? If he couldn’t handle that, and he has avoided ever having a real job, what the heck is he going to do when he has the toughest job in the world? Joe Biden was right. The presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training. And Barack Obama was right when he avoided ever having a job where he would have had to produce results. He is incompetent at anything other than schmoozing and speaking.

    You can’t call him incompetent because his father was black. But that won’t stop him from being incompetent if and when he gets to the Oval Office. And no amount of schmoozing or speechifying spin or affirmative-action double standards prohibiting criticizing blacks will be able to hide his failures there. He can avoid the hard questions refuse to go on Hannity or agree to town hall meetings with McCain as a candidate, but there is no such option in the presidency. If, say, China invades Taiwan, President Obama will have to make a decision what to do about it. I predict he will try to schmooze the Chinese back to the mainland. I also predict it will not work.

    A human subprime loan application

    Obama’s candidacy is, in a number of ways, a human subprime loan application. For one thing, I have said that “subprime” is just a euphemism for substandard. Is Barack Obama substandard as a presidential candidate?

    Absolutely.

    He has about 1/20th to 1/10th of the training and experience as previous major party nominees and presidents.

    He seeks preferential treatment for his skin color which was also the case with many subprime borrowers.

    Is his candidacy the human equivalent of a low doc or no doc loan application? You bet. Low doc and no doc mean low document or no documentation applications. Those did not require proof that the borrower was qualified. Obama has offered no such proof that he is qualified to be president either.

    Recently, the Los Angeles Times reporter who has been traveling with Obama throughout the campaign wrote that he still does not know Obama. None of his colleagues do either. This was in contrast to other campaigns where the reporters who travel with the candidates do get to to know them.

    It reminded me of what former Clinton aide Dick Morris said repeatedly about Hillary. It was along these lines:

    Hillary thinks that if you got to know the real her, you would not like her. So she always hides who she is behind scripted comments and a fake personality that she thinks you are more likely to feel good towards.

    Just as Obama behaves in ways that suggest he believes he is incompetent, he also seems to believe that he can only retain your affection if he prevents you from ever finding out who he really is. He is the lo doc no doc candidate.

    Profound crime

    If I am right that Obama knows he is incompetent, his willingness to campaign for and accept the presidency is profoundly criminal. He is knowingly committing the moral equivalent of a sort of mass scale malpractice. He could do trillions of dollars of damage to the nation. Since presidents make life-or-death decisions, he may well also commit mass manslaughter or mass negligent homicide.

    There is little difference between what Obama is going to do on inauguration day and what Frank Abagnale, Jr. did throughout his life—before he went to jail. The movie Catch Me If You Can was loosely based on Abagnale’s life.

    I know, George W. Bush arguably did something of that nature putting U.S. troops into Iraq, but it will take at least a few more years to draw final conclusions about that. George Bush is almost history. This article, like Obama claimed for himself, is about the future.

    America’s blacks who voted for Obama purely for racial reasons are also co-conspirators to these crimes. They appear to recognize that Obama has virtually no suitable background for the job of president. But they appear to have gone ahead and voted for him anyway disregarding the welfare of the nation—of which they are citizens—because they regarded the self-esteem boost a higher priority than the well-being of America.

    Whites who voted for Obama because he is black—and in spite of his obvious lack of qualifications—appear to have suffered temporary insanity—ranking proving their lack of racism to themselves and the world above our having a competent commander in chief and chief executive.

    The second coming of JFK, FDR, and Lincoln

    Obama has frequently been described as another JFK, FDR, and/or Lincoln. Not only has Obama not discouraged such statements, he has encouraged them. For example, he used Abraham Lincoln’s Bible to be sworn in as president. It was and is extremely foolish for Obama to allow such a towering bar to be set as the measure of whether he succeeds.

    When I mentioned Obama’s failure to protest his being touted as the next JFK. FDR. or Lincoln, my wife said, “He believes it himself.”

    I said, “Actually, I think he thinks he’s better than those guys. He is astonishingly overconfident about everything he does.”

    Is Obama JFK? And Michelle, Jackie Kennedy?

    No. Start with Jackie. She was beautiful enough to have been a model. She spoke fluent French as a result of having been educated in that country. She never made a political speech. She was raised so as to have an amazing amount of grace, class, taste, and style, which she revealed in her redecoration of the White House, invitations to leading classical performing artists to perform at the White House, shielding her children from the press, and the way she dressed.

    Michelle has tried to imitate Jackie by wearing pearls and having musicians like Yo Yo Ma perform at the White House. But there is a ton more to it than that. She needs to be herself, although she tried that and it was a disaster. Now her best bet is to do what she ultimately did during the campaign. Keep her mouth shut and hide.

    I already compared Obama and Kennedy at http://www.johntreed.com/Obama.html.

    Is Obama FDR?

    A. We should hope not and B. No.

    Roosevelt is regarded as the man who saved the U.S. from the Depression. In fact, he inherited a recession and turned it into a prolonged Depression through trade wars and such universally denounced steps as price fixing, paying farmers not to farm, and marginal make-work projects (like the collegiate-style concrete football stadium at my high school—zoom in to the max to see it). The Depression ended in spite of Roosevelt’s efforts as a result of World War II. See the current book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.

    Category
    FDR
    Obama
    College honor
    Editor of the daily Harvard Crimson newspaper
    none
    Law school
    Dropped out of Columbia law School because he had already passed the bar exam
    graduated from Harvard Law School
    Legislative career
    New York State Senator
    Illinois State Senator
    Appointive career
    Assistant Secretary of the Navy
    none
    National politics
    1920 Vice-Presidential candidate
    none
    State executive office
    two-term Governor of New York
    none

     

    Is Obama Lincoln?

    Category
    Lincoln
    Obama
    Education
    only 18 months of one-room school house then self-educated by reading
    wealthy kids high school in Honolulu, Occidental College in Pasadena, Columbia College in Manhattan, Harvard Law School
    Legislative career
    Illinois State Representative
    Illinois State Senator
    Law career

    full-time from 1837 until president in 1861—in one famous case, Lincoln got his client off on a murder charge by discrediting a witness who said he saw the crime by the light of a high moon. Using an almanac, Lincoln proved the moon had almost set at the time of the crime.

    Lincoln argued many cases including appellate cases that set legal precedents

    part-time from 1993 to 2002

    never argued a case

    Military service
    Company commander of an Illinois militia company in the 1832 Black Hawk War
    None
    Oratorical fame
    1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates regarding slavery
    Opening speech at 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated Kerry
    Inventor
    awarded patent in 1849 for navigating shallow waters with floats extended from the sides of river boats
    none
    Party leader
    Founder of the Republican party
    none

    Rhetoric

    Obama is famous as an orator. I agree.

    So are JFK, FDR, and Lincoln. But there is one big differences.

    Obama is gifted at reading a teleprompter. He is like NBC news anchor David Brinkley of whom it was said he could have everyone on the edge of their seats if he read the Manhattan phone book. He did it in part with numerous pauses per sentence. Paul Harvey does the same. So does Obama.

    JFK, FDR, and Lincoln, however, said many memorable things. Even with the best available speech writers, Obama has said nothing memorable.

    Here are some memorable quotes from JFK, FDR, and Lincoln:

    JFK:

    Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.

    And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

    All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner!"

    I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it.

    I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

    FDR:

    Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

    In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

    Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

    We, and all others who believe in freedom as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

    The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.

    Lincoln:

    Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

    Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

    A house divided against itself cannot stand.

    With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

    Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

    ..that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    Obama:

    This guy has written two best-selling books. Actually, the first one flopped, then became a best-seller after his 2004 Democrat convention speech. The second was written after that speech. Can you remember any memorable line from either book? Me neither.

    Obama was nobody until his keynote speech to the 2004 Democrat convention. Please give us some of the memorable quotes from that crucial-to-Obama’s-future speech. You can’t do it, can you? Me neither.

    Then there was his speech on race. It was said that it would be taught in schools and memorized by school children. Please recite some of the great lines from that speech. Nothing, right?

    Then there was his inaugural speech. With each of the former presidents listed above, some of the quotes are from their inaugural speeches. Obama just made his on January 20, 2009. Please remind us of the most famous quotes from Obama’s inaugural speech. You can’t think of any.

    Obama cannot come up with any memorable lines. He cannot even find a speech writer who can, or maybe they did but he was unable to even recognize them when they were written for him and he cut them from the speech. Zilch. Nada.

    But give credit where credit is due. The guy can read a phone book.

    Will the media protect Obama when he fails?

    People have become so used to Obama getting a pass from the media that they figure the same will probably happen after he takes office.

    Nope.

    Why not?

    A top editor claimed the media are not biased toward liberals. Rather, he said, they are biased in favor of the best story. I disagree about the liberals. There is a liberal bias in much of the media. But I agree with him that the media’s main bias is the good story, not Obama’s politics.

    I am a member of the media. Have been for 32 years. What they want more than anything is readers. The classic way to get readers in the writing business is to write a man-bites-dog, not a dog-bites-man story. In other words, the public wants new stories.

    “Old white guy gets elected president” is dog bites man. “Young, partially black guy gets elected president” is man bites dog.

    So are “first black president selects cabinet,” “first black president gets inaugurated,” and “first black president settles into Oval Office.”

    But “first black president has another day at the office” is not new and interesting. It’s boring. On the other hand, “president who spoke to huge adoring crowds and who energized young voters flops as president” is man bites dog. That is the story the media will be looking for as the days unfold after inauguration and they will have no trouble finding it. Will the media admit they screwed up? Sure. That, too, would be man bites dog.

    We have all seen the media build some newcomer on the scene up, only to tear him down once his being on top became old news. The above explanation is why that happens and why that will for sure happen to Obama as well.

    Even Joe Biden agrees with the above scenario. He said during the primaries when he was a candidate for president, that the presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training—a pointed reference to Obama. More recently, as VP nominee, he said that Obama would be tested shortly after inauguration, like Soviet leader Khrushchev did to the 47-year old John Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost led to World War III. Biden also said that it would initially appear that Obama had screwed up his response. He begged the public to support Obama at that future time even though he will not seem at the time to deserve the support.

    Lame, and also in total agreement with what I am saying here.

    Charlie Rose Shows

    It started within days of the election, most notably on the Charlie Rose Show where Tom Brokaw said we do not know who Obama is. Limbaugh put selected portions of the transcript on his Web site. For you knee-jerk, out-of-context accusers, those who have read the whole transcript say the excerpts are consistent with the whole. On a subsequent show, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham called the Obama campaign a “creepy cult of personality.” One thread in these Rose interviews reminded me of the line in the Carly Simon song “You’re so vain you probably think this song is about you.

    You had one eye in the mirror

    As you watched yourself gavotte

    [Wikipedia says Simon’s use of the word “gavotte” means “a pretentious or egotistical style of dancing.”] Obama seems to me to have one eye on the mirror looking it himself always, even when there is no mirror and he needs to imagine one. I expect the dazzled public will eventually realize this and when they do, Obama will become an object of ridicule. His name may even enter the language like Borked. For one example, I predict that cars from Detroit that comply with Obama’s mileage and carbon fooprint requirements will be dubbed “Obamamobiles” and only bought by the same use-my-car-purchase-to-make-a-political-statement liberals who buy Volvos and Priuses.

    On the other side, the media is already building George W. Bush up, most notably with regard to the meeting between him and Obama in the White House on 11/10/08.

    “George W. Bush is a great guy” is man bites dog. So is “Obama is creepy.” Gotta love the traditional headline news media.

    Which candidate will bring ‘change we can believe in’?

    This morning, 8/29/08, John McCain announced that his vice presidential pick was Sarah Palin. The Republicans were instantly energized, and they do not even know the woman yet. I read a 2007 Weekly Standard about her and I must say to those who do not know her,

    You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Or to paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s Joker character in the Batman movie,

    Wait’ll they get a load of her.

    A comparison between the VP picked by “Mr. More of the Same” (according to Obama) and by “Mr. Change” himself

    Category
    Republican Palin
    Democrat Biden
    gender
    would be 1st female VP
    would be 50th male VP
    age
    44 at inauguration
    66 at inauguration
    executive experience
    mayor (Anchorage suburb Wassilla, AK) and governor (AK youngest governor ever there and first woman governor there)
    none
    prior professions
    journalist and commercial fisherman
    lawyer
    radical change acts
    Fired AK Public Safety Commissioner, fired AK Board of Agriculture, filed ethics charges against two prominent AK Republicans, signed biggest dollar veto in AK history, resigned as head of AK Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on principle to be able to denounce fellow Republican member who was behaving unethically (she could not speak out by law as a member, he denied it but later paid a $12K ethics fine). Stopped Exxon, BP, and Conoco from building an overly costly gas pipeline at taxpayer expense; got sales tax increase passed as mayor in state where voters hate taxes; forced resignations of two high Republican officials who behaved unethically; reduced her own salary as mayor and reduced property taxes by 60%; enacted new ethics law and stopped Republican-sponsored pork barrel projects; refused to use state money to fund Republican U.S. Senator Stevens’ “Bridge to Nowhere” when federal funds for that project were stopped; rescinded 35 last-minute appointments made by her governor predecessor; publicly criticized a number of Republicans who have since been indicted, fined, or pled guilty; opposed polar bears being classified an endangered species; vetoed a law that would have prevented gay partners from receiving spouse-type benefits; sold on eBay state jet used for governor transportation; gave birth in April 2008 to a son whom she knew from testing had Down’s Syndrome
    none known
    athletic leadership
    fiercely competitive captain and star of high school basketball team that won state championship, a game in which she played in spite of a stress-fractured ankle
    none
    appearance
    Won Miss Wassilla, AK beauty contest and thereby competed for Miss Alaska where she came in second thereby winning a college scholarship; was also voted Miss Congeniality in Miss Wassilla contest about as good looking as Al Gore and Dick Cheney, should keep his day job, but probably would have won Mr. Congeniality if he had entered a male beauty contest
    Size of state represented
    Alaska governor—population 670,000
    One of two U.S. Senators from Delaware—population 853,000

    Obama is all talk when it comes to change. He doesn’t have the balls to change anything, which explains why he never has changed anything in his 47 years (three more years old than Sarah Palin). The only change we’ll see if Obama is elected is the change of address he files with the Chicago post office.

    By the way, McCain also showed that he is a lot better at keeping a secret (his VP)—a useful skill for a Commander in Chief—than Obama, whose text-message stunt fell flat coming out after the choice leaked.

    Why am I comparing Palin to Biden? Compare her to Obama, who is quite clearly, utterly unqualified to be a governor, let alone president.

    Category
    Republican Palin
    Democrat Obama
    gender
    would be 1st female VP
    would be 47th male president
    age
    44 at inauguration
    47 at inauguration
    race
    would be 47th white president
    would be 1st mulatto (half white half black) president
    executive experience
    mayor (Anchorage suburb Wassilla, AK) and governor (AK youngest governor ever there and first woman governor there)
    none
    prior professions
    journalist and commercial fisherman
    lawyer
    radical change acts
    Fired AK Public Safety Commissioner, fired AK Board of Agriculture, filed ethics charges against two prominent AK Republicans, signed biggest dollar veto in AK history, resigned as head of AK Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on principle to be able to denounce fellow Republican member who was behaving unethically (she could not speak out by law as a member, he denied it but later paid a $12K ethics fine). Stopped Exxon, BP, and Conoco from building an overly costly gas pipeline at taxpayer expense; got sales tax increase passed as mayor in state where voters hate taxes; forced resignations of two high Republican officials who behaved unethically; reduced her own salary as mayor and reduced property taxes by 60%; enacted new ethics law and stopped Republican-sponsored pork barrel projects; refused to use state money to fund Republican U.S. Senator Stevens’ “Bridge to Nowhere” when federal funds for that project were stopped; rescinded 35 last-minute appointments made by her governor predecessor; publicly criticized a number of Republicans who have since been indicted, fined, or pled guilty; opposed polar bears being classified an endangered species; vetoed a law that would have prevented gay partners from receiving spouse-type benefits; sold on eBay state jet used for governor transportation; gave birth in April 2008 to a son whom she knew from testing had Down’s Syndrome
    none known
    athletic leadership
    fiercely competitive captain and star of high school basketball team that won state championship, a game in which she played in spite of a stress-fractured ankle
    bench warmer on state championship high school basketball team
    appearance
    Won Miss Wassilla, AK beauty contest and thereby competed for Miss Alaska where she came in second; was also voted Miss Congeniality in Miss Wassilla contest, resulting scholarship paid her way through U. of Idaho, some resemblance to deaf movie actress Marlee Matlin (Best actress Oscar 1986 Children of a lesser God)
    some resemblance to extras playing Somalis in the movie Blackhawk Down.

    Dems instantly said Palin has no foreign policy experience. Let’s compare her to Obama. He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10 and he ate at an International House of Pancakes. Palin has also eaten at an International House of Pancakes. Joe Biden has been a member of a committee that sits around talking about foreign policy. John McCain lived in North Vietnam from age 31 to 37.

    The only presidential candidate with foreign policy experience in my lifetime was George H.W. Bush (Bush the first) who was shot down fighting against Japan during World War II in the Pacific, ambassador to the U.N., Director of the CIA, the first U.S. envoy to Communist China, and two-term Vice President of the United States. That, “my friends,” is foreign policy experience.

    Democrat candidates have lately been claiming they are more middle class than the Republican candidate. Obama made $4 million in 2007. His wife makes $310,000 a year when she works at the University of Chicago Hospital. McCain has never had a non-government job other than briefly working for his wife’s beer distributor father who was very wealthy. Joe Biden is one of the poorest U.S. Senators reportting a net worth in the low hundreds of thousands. Sarah Palin and her husband, of whom MSNBC immediately asked, “How many houses does she own?” may not own any houses. Her husband is a salaried union employee of Conoco. She was a TV sports reporter then a commercial fisherman with her husband. As far as I can tell, her only income is from her current job of governor of Alaska and she and her family are tenants in the house provided to the governor by the state.

    Sarah Palin acccomplished more in her brief life than any of the other three candidates had by the same age, and more than Obama has yet. Other than seeking high office, he has never really even tried to accomplish anything substantive. She also appears to have the character of a real life verison of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the determined reformer played by Jimmy Stewart. John McCain has tried repeatedly to play his own version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and fancies himself as such, but he keeps falling off the integrity wagon. As far as I can tell, Palin does not fall off that wagon.

    I am not sure how being middle class got to be superior to wealthy. Dems had no trouble with FDR or JFK being wealthy. But one would expect that claim to fame will now disappear from the talking points of the Democrats. Sarah Palin is not just posing as a member of the middle class like Obama whose main connection to the middle class was his pre-college life 24 years ago. Palin is apparently 100%, actual, true, no-kidding, right-now middle class.

    I am not a Republican or a supporter of McCain. See my article on him at www.johntreed.com/McCain.html. But I would probably support Sarah Palin for President.

    Thoughts on John McCain

    John McCain emerged from the Florida primary on 1/29/08 as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. That has generated profound and startling reaction from Republicans. (I come closest to the Libertarian Party. The only time I can recall ever voting for a Republican was Reagan in 1980 and that was because I was so appalled at the possibility of Jimmy Carter getting re-elected. The only time I ever voted Democrat was for McGovern in 1972 and that was because I was appalled at the notion of Richard Nixon being re-elected. I do not recall voting in 1968 because I was in college and had not set up the paperwork. I never opposed the Vietnam war.)

    Rush Limbaugh has been saying he may not vote Republican for the first time. Ann Coulter says she will not only vote for Hillary, she will campaign for her, if McCain is the Republican nominee.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum said that when he was a member of the Republican leadership, he had to work with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the McCain Party. Asked if the problem was McCain not being conservative enough, Santorum said the problem was that McCain was not anything enough. Rephrasing Santorum, McCain was essentially like a Chance card in the Monopoly Game or like one of Forrest Gump’s boxes of chocolates: you never know what you’re gonna get. He is a random factor.

    Sean Hannity seemed to apologize for his stance and assured audiences that he would support the Republican nominees including if it is McCain, but then he insisted that his problems with McCain were substantive and numerous and listed them. They were substantive and numerous. (By the way, my son Dan knew my Web site ranked around the top 1% in the world by traffic, but he didn’t quite believe it. So he did a 2008 comparison at Alexa.com of my Web site—www.johntreed.com—and Hannity’s—www.hannity.com—and was amazed to discover that my traffic was only slightly below Hannity’s most days and exceeded his traffic on some days. Reminds me of when Dan was five and my wife and I were excited about my being on 60 Minutes and Good Morning America that year. Dan was not impressed. Then my wife told him I was going to be on Larry King Live. “From Ghostbusters!?” he asked. King had a cameo appearance as himself in that movie. It is possible to impress your five-year-old son, but you have to pick your accomplishments carefully.)

    Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran said, “The thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine.” Columnist Thomas Sowell’s 2/1/08 column in my local paper said similar things to what I say in this article about McCain.

    I wondered what would cause such a variety of staunch Republicans to make such extreme statements. When I investigated, I discovered that McCain is, indeed, a Republican presidential candidate who

    • is not conservative as evidenced by many votes on campaign finance, global warming, and amnesty and such
    • is not liberal as evidenced by his hard-core support of the Iraq war
    • is not a maverick as evidenced by the widespread support for many of the things he supported and his retreat when he ran into resistance as on amnesty
    • is not a moderate as evidenced by his support for the war in Iraq

    If McCain is a maverick, he needs to seek the Maverick Party nomination and their campaign funds and ballot access.

    No one can support him because they like his record because there is no coherent theme to his record. He is guaranteed to have spit in your face on some important issue, no matter what political point of view you have, and if he has not yet, he will soon. Conservatives have been saying he’s not conservative enough. That makes many say he must be liberal or moderate, which they like. NO! He is not anything enough. Politically, he is not anything, period. He is just some guy who may take all sorts of positions—including extreme right and extreme left—depending upon his whim.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Dumb?

    One reader wondered if McCain is just dumb which, when combined with stubborn, can look random. Maybe. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis. I suspect he got into Annapolis because of who his father and grandfather were, and that he was allowed to graduate for the same reason. McCain did not go to graduate school which was quasi-standard for those of us who went to service academies in that era.

    When he was accused of being crazy in 2000, he released his Navy medical records including psychiatric interviews and diagnoses. Let him now release his SAT scores and high school and college transcripts. I am sure Hillary (Wellesley and Yale Law) and Barack (Columbia and Harvard Law) would be glad to do the same.

    ‘Reaching across the aisle’

    McCain spins his hodge-podge record as evidence of his ability to “reach across the aisle” to the other side and get “bi-partisan” legislation passed.

    McCain’s seat assignment in the Senate is, indeed, on the Republican side of the aisle, but only because he self-identified as a Republican to get access to their campaign funds, brand name, committee-leadership-by-tenure spots, and ballot access. If the Republicans had a significant majority in the Senate, they might have disciplined him for various votes he has cast. But when your party hangs on by the skin of its teeth and has a one-vote majority or a one-vote minority, you have to accept every “Republican” you can get, even a purely nominal one like McCain.

    If you want to see bi-partisanship look at Republicans like Newt Gingrich and George Bush. Actually, virtually any legislation that passed in recent years was bi-partisan to an extent. Neither party has been able to pass party-platform legislation with straight party-line votes for some time. McCain’s voting record is more bi-polar than bi-partisan.

    You cannot support him because you like his program because he doesn’t have a program. For example, he tried to get amnesty and then retreated into obfuscating what he favors with regard to immigration. Over the years, he has gotten his name on all manner of awful bills with all sorts of odd-bedfellow co-sponsors (most notably McCain-Feingold which is an unconstitutional violation of free speech; McCain-Kennedy which is amnesty for illegal immigrants; and McCain-Lieberman which forces U.S. taxpayers to pay big for Al Gore’s nutty “global warming” obsession).

    Ann Coulter said Hillary is better on national defense than McCain and rattled off a dozen facts that proved it.

    Starting a new party?

    Some Republicans are so astonished and shaken that such a person as McCain may capture their presidential nomination that they are talking of starting a new party. Indeed, I can think of no modern precedent for an unfocused gadfly like McCain being a presidential nominee of either party. The most disastrous Republican presidential nominee ever came from the same job as McCain: Arizona senator. That was Goldwater in 1964, but he was the polar opposite of McCain. Goldwater stood for something consistent in everything he did. His friends and allies could rely upon him. Hell! His enemies could rely on him!

    The most disastrous modern Democrat presidential nominees—McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984—were also quite consistent and liberal.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    McCain to Republicans: ‘Give me your campaign funds, brand name, and automatic nationwide ballot access but shove everything your party represents up your a**’

    Neither of the two major parties has ever nominated a person who repeatedly spit in the eye of the majority of the people in his party over one issue or another over decades or whose record was so devoid of any pattern that would enable a neutral observer to reverse engineer what party he must be from.

    Media stories almost invariably say that McCain not only defied the Republican party again and again, but that he did so “gleefully” or that he went out of his way to poke the Republicans in the eye during his forays against them.

    John S. McCain III does not have a voting record that would enable him to prove he is a member of the Republican party. One conservative group ranked him 49th or some such among the 100 senators. In contrast, a liberal group ranked Obama 1st. McCain also does not have a voting record that would enable him to claim membership in the Democrat party. If this were the Olympics, where they gender test, he would flunk the test for being a man—or a woman!

    McCain’s membership in the Republican party seems totally arbitrary and appears to have no basis other than he declared himself to be a Republican when he first entered politics as a candidate and has not changed his affiliation since. He appears to have no business running in either Republican or Democrat primaries. His party choice appears to be like that of another career military, service academy graduate: Wes Clark, who was never either a Republican or Democrat, but who appeared to pick the party (Democrat) that seemed most likely to award him the nomination the year (2004) he decided to run—solely because it was the only party with a presidential opening that year. The Republicans had a sitting president—George W. Bush—at the time.

    But at least Clark had the decency to conform his views to the Democrat party after having arbitrarily selected them. McCain arbitrarily selected the Republican party then told them to shove their views after he got their endorsement at the beginning of his career. He continues to get the Party’s powerful financial support decade after decade in spite of showing not the slightest interest in anything they are about.

    In short, McCain’s position is, yes, it’s true that I never supported the Republican Party, but now the Republican Party has to support me. Deal with it.

    He now demands that which he refused to give all these years: support for the Republican party.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Does McCain buy green bananas?

    Some who fear a McCain presidency may take solace in the fact that an overweight, crippled, 72-year-old, former smoker who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam may not remain sufficiently healthy to serve a full, four-year term. (When McCain sought a campaign loan in 2007, he was reportedly forced to purchase a life-insurance policy as part of the deal—apparently unprecedented for a presidential candidate.) The bad news for those who take solace in the possibility he may not be healthy enough to serve his entire four-year term is that his vice president will probably be Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold.

    McCain likes to put his 95-year-old mom on display to refute the age issue. That would be more persuasive if she were accompanied by Senator McCain’s father, who died at age 70, and if both McCain’s parents were overweight, crippled, former smokers who spent five-and-a-half years as prisoners of war.

    I am not opposed to 72-year olds. I hope to be one some day. I recently attended a speech by 72-year-old former NFL coach Dick Vermiel and he looked “mahvelous.” But he spent his whole life taking good care of himself and was not prevented from doing so for five-and-a-half years.

    Torture and solitary confinement as preparation for controlling the nuclear button

    There is also the issue of whether being tortured and held in solitary confinement for years is good preparation for having your finger on the nuclear war button. I suspect not. According to McCain’s military medical records, he tried to commit suicide twice while he was a POW. Can we blame him? Not me. Being tortured and in solitary is way beyond my experience. But that’s not the question. The question is whether we let a person who tried to commit suicide twice have control of the nuclear war button.

    McCain has a well-known, legendary volcanic temper that he cannot, or chooses not to, control. Again, this is not the description of a person whose finger should be on the nuclear war button.

    Why do we have his medical records? He released them during the 2000 presidential race to prove he was not, as some had suggested, crazy. Considering the suicide attempts, I think he was crazy to release them.

    Did his POW experience turn him into some sort of Manchurian Candidate? I see no evidence of that. But did his POW experience screw him up for a job as sensitive as leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the world’s only super power? It is an open question. The medical records are not encouraging. The biggest expert on how McCain was changed by his time as a POW would be the college sweetheart wife who was waiting for him while his was in North Vietnam—the woman he traded in for a younger, blonder, cleavage-displaying, beer heiress.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Laura Bush is the First Lady. I said when Bill Clinton was president that Hillary was not the First Lady; she was the First Woman. By that token, Cindy McCain would be the First Other Woman.

    John and Cindy McCain make an odd First Couple visually. He looks like he just left Ed’s Rodeo Tavern. She looks like she just got back from Rodeo Drive—or a Paris Hilton look-alike contest.

    Rebel without a cause

    His medical records also reveal that he told his military psychiatrist that he was a “rebel without a cause.” Rebel without a cause was the name of a classic movie starring the late James Dean. It is also a precise description of some people. I knew one of those when I was in the Army. He got out and went on to be a rather prominent white-collar criminal.

    I have coached over 900 athletes. Some of them were rebels without causes. I have concluded that being a rebel without a cause is a dangerous psychiatric defect. As a coach, whenever I spotted a potential rebel without a cause on one of my teams, I would talk to him and watch him closely and, if that diagnosis was confirmed, I could not throw him off the team quickly enough. A rebel without a cause is simply a person who seeks to disrupt the organization for the sake of disrupting it. Their motto is, “I disrupt, therefore I exist.” You cannot please them. They will not take yes for an answer. Not agreeing is their goal. Psychiatrically healthy people negotiate to achieve a goal. Rebels without a cause negotiate just to jerk the negotiating opponent around.

    Newsweek says McCain‘s nicknames at his fancy prep school high school were “Punk,” “Nasty,” and “McNasty.” McCain spins that and the rebel without a cause as in the past. It all looks like it’s still what he is. Maybe he was not affected enough by being a POW.

    Am I opposed to all rebels? Hell, no! I are one. But I have always been a rebel with a cause. What cause? When I was in the Army, I raged against what I called OVUM and OPUM. OVUM stands for things that are Officially Voluntary but Unofficially Mandatory. It’s ass-kissing stuff like requiring junior Army officers to attend so-called “command performance” parties hosted by superior officers. See my article on OVUM. OPUM is things that are Officially Prohibited but Unofficially Mandatory, like signing false reports. See my article on military integrity. By the way, McCain’s father and grandfather were also Annapolis grads and they were big-shot admirals. I presume all three McCains had to go along with, and did go along with, the same OVUM and OPUM that I rebelled against. Rebels without causes within the military know exactly which things they had better not rebel against—namely kissing the asses of the brass and signing whatever false reports the brass want signed. Indeed, Newsweek says McCain “seemed to know exactly how far he could go.” I do not respect that sort of selective rebellion that ends abruptly when you may suffer an actual consequence. Real rebels continue to rebel when the consequences are triggered. The cause is important to them, not rebellion for rebellion’s sake.

    In real estate investment, I have rebelled against the get-rich-quick infomercials. In baseball, I rebelled against the lack of appropriate safety regulations. In football, I have rebelled against the lack of contrarianism and competent clock management and lousy decision-making in areas that lend themselves to mathematical analysis like fourth downs. In publishing I have rebelled against book stores and distributors.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Lying

    Romney called McCain a liar recently—said he would tell any lie to get elected. A number of mainstream media organizations promptly agreed with Romney on the alleged lie. I agree with Romney on that.

    Above, I said I only vote Republican or Democrat when I am so appalled by the main party alternative that I feel I must vote for the other one to try to save the country from the appalling major party alternative. Is McCain appalling? Absolutely.

    If I have to choose between Hillary and McCain would I vote for Hillary?

    Hillary is a liar. (See David Geffen’s 2007 comments or a zillion others.) She and her husband should have been disbarred and locked up when they were in Arkansas ($100,000 bribe disguised as a commodities trade profit; false financial statements to get Whitewater loans; rape of Juanita Broderick; yadda yadda)

    John McCain is also a liar as I just mentioned.

    But unlike Hillary, McCain lies from a bus labeled the “Straight-Talk Express.” That makes him a lower form of scum than Hillary.

    Hillary lies. She knows everyone knows she lies. If asked point blank, she will deny lying—if she cannot change the subject. But unlike McCain, she has never gone out of her way to claim to be a straight talker or truth teller. He has, in spite of the fact that he is every bit as quick as her to lie if he thinks he needs to to get elected.

    So if I were forced, I repeat, forced, to chose only between Hillary and McCain, I would choose Hillary. I think she would run the country similar to Bill without the blowjobs and sexual assaults. Bill is slime, but nothing good or bad happened to the vast majority of us as a result of his being president.

    With McCain, on the other hand, I have no idea what he would do. Like Santorum said, McCain is the political equivalent of a random-number generator. All I know is he will favor some unknown legislation or military adventure I hate, plus he will have the power of the presidency to make it happen. He will do the same with regard to some legislation or military adventure you hate.

    Hillary, in contrast, will have no interest in anything other than advancing her own career like her husband. Consequently, she will only do things that are likely to get her re-elected and get Democrats elected to the House and Senate—moderate, middle-of-the-road stuff. Ignore what she says on the campaign trail. Bill said the same stuff. All the want is power, not left-wing stuff. Bill and Hillary say they will “fight” for this or “fight” for that. Neither of them has ever fought for anything in their lives other than power. If you get between them and power, they will cut your throat. But they wouldn’t even cut wind for a cause or issue.

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    In fact, since both Hillary and McCain are appalling, I will continue my usual habit of voting for a third party candidate, usually the Libertarian. When you vote third party, there is no need to examine the character of the individual. They have no chance. You vote only for the platform to send a message to the two major parties. For example, in 1992, the big third-party candidate, Ross Perot, wanted to balance the budget. He got 19% of the vote, including mine. And guess what we got a year or two later under Bill Clinton? A balanced budget. Why? Clinton could count the 19% and recognized that he won because of it. He feared Perot or another member of that party taking away enough votes in the next election to cause him to lose. The Clintons will do ANYTHING to get or keep power, including balance the budget, which has long been anathema to their tax-and-spend party.

    Support the Republican party nominee whoever he is?

    Many people, like Sean Hannity, have said, “Of course, I will support the Republican Party nominee whoever it is.” Limbaugh and Coulter, to their credit, have the brains to recognize that the Republican Party is not some great human Wizard of Oz with a coherent brain. Rather, the Republican nomination is the result of a goofy mathematical formula based on a polyglot series of elections almost all of which have different rules, including allowing Democrats and independents to choose delegates for the Republican nominating convention. Limbaugh and Coulter have the brains to recognize that it is quite possible and even likely that the “Republican Party” nominating process may select a non-Republican, namely John McCain, as its candidate.

    ‘Yellow dog’

    There is an old phrase—“yellow dog Democrat”—that refers to voters who would vote for a yellow dog if he were listed as a Democrat on the ballot. Years ago, you could pull a single lever to vote a straight party line for all candidates for all offices. Machines do not allow that mindlessness anymore.

    But even yellow dog democrats were voting for Democrat Yellow Dogs. The Yellow Dog metaphor referred to the lack of character of the Democrat candidate in question. It absolutely did not have anything whatsoever to do with whether that candidate would vote with his or her fellow Democrats in the legislature. He or she damn well would vote the party line.

    McCain and Hannity give new political meaning to the phrase “Yellow Dog.” Hannity is claiming to be a Yellow Dog Republican, that is, he says he will vote for whomever the Republican party selects, period. But the issue raised by McCain’s success thus far at garnering delegates is not whether he is a Republican of low or high character. It is whether he is even a Republican at all. In fact, he is a free-form gadfly who cares not one whit about any reasonable list of Republican, Democrat, Labor Party, Baath Party, or any other party principles.

    It has been said that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Limbaugh and Coulter take the position that neither are the Republican Party presidential nominating rules. Hannity, nice guy that he is, is not bright enough to figure that out.

    ‘War hero’

    If McCain is a maverick, why is he popular? Mavericks, by definition, have no base.
    Even other mavericks don’t like them because maverick behavior does not align among mavericks. It is random. It seems that those who are supporting McCain do so solely because he is a “war hero.”

    Let me discuss that from the perspective of a Vietnam veteran. I also happen to be a service academy graduate like McCain. He went to Annapolis (Navy). I went to West Point (Army). I was ten years behind him.

    McCain’s Vietnam service

    McCain was a Navy pilot. He got shot down over North Vietnam and captured and imprisoned by the enemy. Both his shoulders were broken by the sides of his cockpit when he pulled the ejection handle. He was a prisoner of war for five and a half years and was tortured and put in solitary confinement for much of that time. He was offered some deal that would let him go home early and refused to comply with its terms as required by the U.S. Code of Conduct. He was also ordered to turn the deal down by his commander among the P.O.W.s.

    The media says he was given a chance to leave Vietnam and go home but he “refused.” Well, wait a minute. How, exactly, does one refuse to leave North Vietnam when one is an unarmed, crippled prisoner of war? If the North Vietnamese want you returned home, they just fly you to a neutral country and dump you there. They do not ask your damned permission. There has to be more to the story than “McCain refused to leave.”

    Receive email updates from John T. Reed

    Getting shot down

    Civilians are impressed with McCain’s having gotten shot down. Those of us who were in the military know that getting wounded or shot down can stem from three categories of reasons:

    • brave acts like out-of-ammunition American planes “attacking” Japanese ships at the Battle of Midway to draw fire away from armed U.S. planes
    • bad luck
    • screwing up

    Yahoo! options