Wow! . . . Concerning Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney

Eloquent. Passionate. Thoughtful. Insightful. Historically reasoned.

Jack Hunter responds to my shock and dismay to hear Rand Paul--Ron Paul's son--endorse Mitt Romney. Hunter's response: Ron Paul is Becoming Something More Important than President.

Really?

Whoever this young guy, Jack Hunter, is, he has a big vision and pretty amazing insight. Great historical perspective as well.

So. Was it--will it be--a waste of all the effort, money and time that Paul supporters invested in "their" candidate? Not according to Hunter!

"We have elections every few years," says Hunter toward the end of his presentation. "We have very few revolutions during our lifetime."

"Ron Paul will not be president. He will instead go down in history . . . as the man who redefined what future presidents will be, what the [Republican] Party will be, what the country will be."

"It all started with Ron Paul, but it doesn't end with Ron Paul."

Here's his strategic perspective:



Here's his more direct commentary on Rand's endorsement, as well: "Why Rand was Right to Endorse Romney":



Great political wisdom. And principle. Clearly, I lack his understanding. But I'm willing to learn.

"There is no shame in compromising politically to advance principle. But we can never compromise our principles simply to advance politically."

Washington Post: "Ron Paul becoming serious contender in Republican presidential race"

What? He will finally get a little press coverage?

Nice balanced article in the Washington Post yesterday.

Now, if only someone would do a thorough story/interview in which they permit Paul himself to speak about his views. Ask the skeptical/incredulous questions and let him answer.

That's what amazes me: His views sound loony as summarized in five-word sound-bites by others (at the end of the referenced article, for example) . . . until he gets the opportunity to summarize his views in two- to five-minute sound-bites. Suddenly, for example, with respect to his views on Israel, I've found he makes a lot of sense.

Kolbe Presidential Survey

Fascinating "take" on the two major party presidential candidates. And here I've had the invitation letter sitting in my in-box, unopened, for a week and a half.

Greetings!

We all bring our instinctive, conative talents to our jobs. John McCain and Barack Obama are no exception, but do we know who they are?

Kolbe Corp's new website, www.presidentialinstincts.com, is a fun way for you to say how you think the candidates solve problems, and to see what others are saying.

Although we're sprinkling some science into our approach, we aren't claiming the results are scientific – just compelling. You can see how other people voted based on age, gender, race and who they plan to vote for in the election. Since the results are continuously updated, you'll be able to see any potential shifts in the electorate as we get closer to Election Day.

We aren't endorsing or supporting either candidate. We're just curious to see how you and others view them. You can decide whether you agree or disagree with the results, and whether it will affect your vote on November 4th. We hope that by focusing on instinctive talents, people who visit the survey can find something positive about both candidates.

Maybe Senators Obama and McCain will take us up on our offer to get their Kolbe results for free so each can better understand this part of what will drive his success should he have the honor of being our next President.

I encourage you to take a moment to cast your ballot at www.presidentialinstincts.com. It will change the way you look at selecting people for a job, including the upcoming opening in the Oval Office.

Sincerely,

David Kolbe
CEO, Kolbe Corp

Check it out!

Our firm uses the Kolbe A test to evaluate new managers. It really is revealing. And as I "took the test" for Obama and McCain, I was shocked at my responses . . . but/and I think the answers helped me to understand a bit better why I feel as I do about the two candidates.

Sorry. You've only got a few hours before the "test" will be completed.

Interesting perspective on a possible Obama victory from Peggy Noonan . . .

I thought this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal had a number of good insights. But I particularly liked one of Noonan's broad observations, and two of her broad conclusions.

The observation:

People wonder if [Obama] is decisive.

It is clear he is decisive in terms of his own career: He decides to go for president of the law review, to move to Chicago, to roll the dice for a U.S. Senate seat, to hire David Axelrod, to take on Hillary, to campaign with discipline and even elegance. When it comes to his career, his decisions are thought through and his judgments sound.

But when it comes to decisions that have to do with larger issues, with great questions and not with him, things get murkier. There is the long trail of the missed and "present" votes, the hesitance on big questions. One wonders if in the presidency he'll be like the dog that chased the car and caught it: What's he supposed to do now?

And the two conclusions.

First:

If Mr. Obama wins, and governs as a moderate liberal, not veering left, not seeming to be the cap that pops off a kettle that's been boiling for eight years, but governs to a degree, at least in general approach, as Bill Clinton did--as a moderate Democrat well aware of the terrain—he may know some success. And he may be able to tamp down the insistence of the long-simmering left by the force of his own popularity, which will grow once he is president among grateful Democrats, and others.

But if he goes left--if it comes to seem as if the attractive, dark-haired man has torn open his shirt to reveal a huge S, not for Superman but for Socialist, if he jumps toward reforms such as a speech-limiting new Fairness Doctrine, that won't yield success. It will yield trouble, and unneeded domestic arguments. We have enough needed ones.

And second:

In a way, Mr. Obama can more easily go left in foreign relations for the precise reason no one knows what going left is, because no one knows what going right in foreign relations is, at least if "right" means "conservative."

Mr. Obama has a great chance, in this area, to confuse the world. And a confused world is not all a bad thing. His persona, name, color, youth and approach will, at least initially, jumble up long-settled categories. Radicals enjoy hating America, but a particular picture of America. He is not that picture. He will give calculating Western European leaders an opening to be friendly to America again; they will feel that Mr. Obama's victory constitutes the rebuke of the Bushism they desire. They will befriend the rebuker.

******And now I wonder what I'm doing . . . and what Noonan and other conservative and/or Republican commentators are doing as we write things like this in which we imagine a potentially decent--rather than disastrous--outcome from an Obama presidency. Are we attempting to come to terms with--settle ourselves about--what appears to be a likely Obama victory?

I filled in my ballot last night . . .

Sarita and I got absentee ballots, so "it was time."

I literally held my nose, held my breath and tightened my diaphragm to raise my blood pressure several levels, . . . and then I made lots of gagging/vomiting sounds while I "did the deed" and filled in the presidential ticket, but I did what I felt I needed to.

The d*mning evidence that keeps piling up, first, about Obama's radicalism--his not merely "pro-choice" but truly anti-life perspectives; his predilection for having "the government" serve as the "solution" to virtually all problems everywhere; his obvious commitment to agitating and supporting agitation for increases in government hand-outs-- . . . and the slow multiplication of relationships he maintains with people whose own commitments are, more and more, demonstrably at least as radical and probably more so than his own; and the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious that his relationships with these people are far deeper and more serious than he seems, ever, to let on: despite all his fine rhetoric and personal poise, I realize I "just" do not trust him . . . at a deep and visceral level.

The comments of several ladies on the Sonlighters Club forums helped seal my decision.

• "Our system, as imperfect as it is, has placed McCain and Obama at the top and has made them the only two real choices, and I sure know who is NOT my choice. I will vote for McCain/Palin. I will accept that I will have part of the pie and not all in order to avoid having none."
   
• "The word that comes to mind for me is "mandate." I do not for a minute think this election is over, but regardless of the outcome, the greater the difference of popular or electoral votes, the more the winner feels he has a mandate to institute his policies. A closer vote indicates less people who are supportive, and lets the winner know that he has to represent more people who disagree with him. It also sends a message to the other lawmakers who will need to vote for those proposals."

And, finally, in response to the immediately preceding comment,

• "In light of the potential of a filibuster-proof super-majority in the senate, I couldn't agree more!"

FWIW.

It's nice to have that over with!

The Clever Hans effect and opinion-poll stuffing . . .

Fascinating analysis of a major Obama campaign strategy . . . from ZombieTime. I find it hard to imagine the author's fore-stated conclusion is correct, but the psychological tactics he describes are certainly worth considering. Check out The Left's Big Blunder: The disastrously counter-productive strategy of Obama's supporters.

-- With thanks to my brother for the link!

Ongoing sickness . . .

How long can he keep dancing?
"My relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. . . . It's probably 13 years ago, when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN. And my partner in that representation was the U.S. Justice Department in having Illinois implement what was called the Motor Voter law to make sure people could go to DMVs and driver's license facilities to get registered. It wasn't being implemented. That was my relationship and is my relationship to ACORN.

"There is an ACORN organization in Chicago. They've been active. As an elected official, I've had interactions with them. But they are not advising our campaign. We've got the best voter registration and turn-out and volunteer operation in politics right now and we don't need ACORN's help. . . .

"This [problem of fraudulent voter registrations] is another one of these distractions that gets stirred up during the course of a campaign. But what I want to make sure of is that this is not used as an excuse for the kind of voter suppression strategies and tactics that we have seen in the past. Let's just make sure everybody is voting, everybody is registered. Let's make sure everybody is doing it in a lawful way."

Isn't that sweet?

"Thirteen years ago. . . . That was my relationship and is my relationship to ACORN."

Except, as quoted in this blog, what about Toni Foulkes' article in the Spring 2004 issue of Social Policy magazine where she says,

Since [1992], we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate [i.e., 2004--jah], we were old friends. . . .

--Somehow, to me, running the ACORN "session on power every year" till 2004 doesn't look like a one-shot lawsuit 13 years ago!

And then what about this clip from the December 2007 meeting of the Center for Community Change?

Master of Ceremonies: "If elected President of the United States, would you agree, in your first 100 days, to meet with a delegation of representatives from these various community organizations that campaigned for community values: could they count on you, in your first 100 days, to sit down with them?"

Obama: "Yes. But let me even say, before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda of the next presidency of the United States of America."

Clearly, that's not suggesting ACORN or similar "community organizations" are "advising" his campaign. And perhaps he doesn't "need" ACORN's help at this stage of the election cycle, but it definitely shows where his sympathies lie . . . and they are with people who look for the government, more or less, to do everything in their behalf, people who are addicted to government largesse rather than making their way, as much as possible, on their own.

And then, finally, what about Obama's comment that "I want to make sure . . . that this is not used as an excuse for the kind of voter suppression strategies and tactics that we have seen in the past. . . . Let's make sure everybody is doing it in a lawful way."

Anyone reminded of the Cloward-Piven Strategy discussed here beginning about halfway down my A little more about politics . . . post form last Saturday?

As the author of the original Cloward-Piven Strategy report note,

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. . . .

Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

And that, it appears, is exactly what the ACORN activists are seeking to do . . . whether or not they succeed in rigging the election directly through voter fraud: overwhelm the system so that someone, somewhere, will be denied the legitimate right to vote because the election officials are trying so desperately to exclude all the overwhelming mass of illegitimate "voters."

Funny Sad

One of my friends at the Sonlighters Club posted this link.

"Man on the Street" interviews in Harlem about why residents are for their favorite candidate. It is funny and sad all at the same time.

It "turned out" that the interviewees were all for Obama, but I'm sure it would work both ways.

In essence, we find . . .

"I'm for my man no matter what!"

"Why?"

"He's my man!"

"Even if . . . ?"

"Absolutely!"

More evidence for the validity of the idea that cognitive dissonance won't help people make rational decisions.

A bit more about the current election

I really don't want to talk about this stuff on my birthday. (Yep. It's the big 5-3 for me. I made my first appearance in the world on Columbus Day 53 years ago.)

But I need to get this out of my system.

I did some more research yesterday and came up with the following regarding ACORN's history of malfeasance:

• First of all, I commend to you this article first written in 2003 and last updated in 2004: The Real ACORN: Anti-Employee, Anti-Union, Big Business.
  
  Clearly, it's a piece written by someone disturbed by the hypocrisy of the left: they are "all about" everyone needing to do the right thing as they see the right . . . unless they find themselves inconvenienced. [Sad to say, I'm afraid, much the same could be said about the right, too: they, too, are "all about" everyone doing the right thing . . . unless it's themselves. . . . Which is why I'm rather in favor of a limited-government, libertarian view.]
   
• Then there is this article from the National Review. It, too, is from 2004.
   
• But why am I talking about ACORN? . . . Oh! That's right! . . . Because it appears Barack Obama is far more closely tied to this group than he and his cohort are willing to let on.
  
  Consider this article by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN leader and member of ACORN's National Association Board, about ACORN and Obama. It was published in Social Policy, "a quarterly review of contemporary movements for social change in the workplace, the community, and the world." Foulkes writes:

  ACORN noticed [Obama] when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter. . . . Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).
  
  Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends. . . .
  
  It seemed to us that what Obama needed in the March primary was what we always work to deliver anyway: increased turnout in our ACORN communities. . . .
  
  As it turned out, Obama won the primary handily, pulling white wards as well as African American. But no one knew that that would be the case.
  
  In each election we must act as if our work is critical for our communities. That is what we did in the primary, and we learned something in the process.

  So much for the supposedly nonpartisan character of this organization that is heavily funded by the U.S. government--i.e., you!
  
  Oh. And, since we're on the subject . . . get this opening paragraph (actually, the second paragraph in the article):

  ACORN is active in experimenting with methods of increasing voter participation in our low and moderate income communities in virtually every election. But in some elections we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear.

• From American Thinker, September 28th.
  
  How did we get into the financial mess we face at the moment as a result of failed mortgages? Slide on down about halfway through the article to the "Mortgage Crisis" subhead . . . and then begin reading.
  
  Pretty devastating stuff.
  
  And, of course, don't miss the chart that

  puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. . . . Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.
  
  Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

  Nor should you miss a the description and documentation of Obama's ties to the big-wigs in many of the failed and failing financial institutions that have been recently or are now being bailed out:

  As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN's Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
  
  Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus "our family" and "the conscience of Fannie Mae."
  
  In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.
  
  In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?
  
  His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
  
  Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:
  
  An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
  
  Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle." Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.
  
  Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

Bleccchhhh!

The stench of our current political process is turning my stomach. But I am stuck back at the comments of a local political commentator.

--Scan down about halfway in my A little more about politics . . . post yesterday. Look for "Mike Rosen."

So now I'm wondering if, indeed, I am going to vote Republican . . . not because I have any faith in their party, but because I have less faith in the Democrats.

Rosen's article is truly distressing to me. . . .

Sick unto death of the election?

Perhaps you'd like to listen to this booming "country 'n' western" view from

The Man in the Middle by . . . actually, I don't know his name . . . other than he goes by "Big Bison." But he's a Sonlight dad and he did it with one of his buddies. (It's "Big Bison" who does the singing.)

I wrote to "Mrs. Big Bison":

I hope they release it nationally . . . and soon!

It's great!

Maybe it could do as well as Snoopy for President did back in '68. (Sorry. The poster seems to have cut the phrase "in '68" right at the beginning of the song. It originally said, "The time had come in '68 to elect a president. . . ." --You can hear a slight "skip" in the music from where the editor chopped that reference out.)

And now it begins to hit the fan . . .

So I got up this morning and began to look for information about Sarah Palin.

Already, last night, I had read of her possible ethical lapse with her ex-brother-in-law.

And in the same article, I read negative comments from her own state's leading papers about her lack of experience and lack of interest or drive toward national politics:

From the editorial in the Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks:

Sen. John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate was a stunning decision that should make Alaskans proud, even while we wonder about the actual merits of the choice.... Alaskans and Americans must ask, though, whether she should become vice president and, more importantly, be placed first in line to become president.

In fact, as the governor herself acknowledged in her acceptance speech, she never set out to be involved in public affairs. She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Republicans rightfully have criticized the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, for his lack of experience, but Palin is a neophyte in comparison; how will Republicans reconcile the criticism of Obama with the obligatory cheering for Palin?

Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation's when he created the possibility that she might fill it.

And from the editorial in the Anchorage Daily News:

It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency.

Gov. Palin is a classic Alaska story. She is an example of the opportunity our state offers to those with talent, initiative and determination...

McCain picked Palin despite a recent blemish on her ethically pure resume. While she was governor, members of her family and staff tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers. Her public safety commissioner would not do so; she forced him out, supposedly for other reasons. While she runs for vice-president, the Legislature has an investigator on the case.

For all those advantages, Palin joins the ticket with one huge weakness: She's a total beginner on national and international issues.

Gov. Palin will have to spend the next two months convincing Americans that she's ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency....

I'm afraid I'm rather naïve. Even though I say this blog mixes in "a little politics," politics is really not a major interest of mine. That I don't normally follow political races.

But reading the article I just referenced from The Huffington Post--and seeing several other articles whose titles alone oozed similar animosity--I realized, if Palin is supposed to become vice president, she is going to have to endure some pretty grueling tests.

But now to this morning.

I bump into an article that suggests Palin may have "faked" pregnancy to cover for an out-of-wedlock baby born by her daughter?

Ouch! And, Oh! And, Oh, no!

Is this "politics as usual"? Rumor-mongering? Will Sarah Palin stand up to scrutiny?

If the independent public investigator assigned to discover the facts in the case concerning Palin's ex-brother-in-law should determine she actually did overstep the bounds of propriety in his case, and/or if the rumor about a faked pregnancy proves true, not only do McCain and Palin have major ethical issues on their hands, but McCain's choice of running mate--the lack of discernment her choice shows--will become a major negative factor in McCain's election strategy. And one would have to question the entire Republican Party: are they really so short of qualified candidates that they have to choose someone with virtually no national standing to become the vice presidential candidate?

Though then, come to think of it, the same question could be asked of the Democrats concerning Obama. He has some major ethical issues of his own, doesn't he?

As Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch (JW), notes in his latest fund-raising letter, JW felt the need to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Illinois State Archives (ISA) to produce "any and all public documents . . . resulting from Illinois State Senator Barack Obama's years in office (1997-2004) that the ISA have in their possession."

Why?

Because

Back when he was questioned about his records on Meet the Press last year, Senator Obama stated

"Well, let's be clear. In the state Senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois . . . every document related to my interactions with government is available right now."

Yet the State Archives responded to our request by telling us that they don't maintain those records, nor have they received any requests from Senator Obama to archive any of his records.

"Clearly," Fitton says, "Barack Obama, just like Hillary Clinton, has a records problem. Our investigation suggests Senator Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to the public but has chosen not to. Apparently he does not want a complete paper trail of his time in the Illinois State Senate.
So much for 'transparency' from the candidate who has made honesty and integrity his calling card!"

And then there is the matter of his relationship with Tony Rezko.

[W]e know that Senator Obama has a tangled history of personal and business dealings with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the United States from Syria, settled in Chicago and who has long served as a political godfather to Barack Obama.

Over the years, in fact, Mr. Rezko has basically bankrolled Senator Obama's political career — beginning with Obama's first campaign for public office in 1996.
Rezko and members of his large family have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns since then. (The highly respected London Times referred to Rezko as "Mr. Obama's long-serving bagman.")

The relationship between Rezko and Senator Obama is so close that the Senator and Rezko went in on a real estate deal together! In fact, Obama's dealing with Rezko may have allowed Obama to pay $300,000 below the asking price for his $1.65 million Chicago mansion.

Obama and Rezko "walked through" the mansion together. They bought adjoining properties on the same day, and Rezko paid full freight on the deal (to the same owner Obama bought his house from).

This story gets more interesting when you consider that on June 4th in Chicago Tony Rezko was convicted in court for fraud and for a kickback scheme designed to shake down investment firms seeking Illinois state government business. . . .

Papers filed in this case show that about a month before Obama's suspicious land deal, Rezko received a wire transfer of $3.5 million from Nadhim Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire now living in Britain who made his fortune through "business dealings" with the corrupt Saddam Hussein regime. This transfer raises the question posed by the London Times — whether or not "funds from Nadhmi Auchi . . . helped Mr. Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago."

Rezko has now been convicted for his alleged corrupt dealings with the administration of another prominent Illinois Democrat, Governor Rod Blagojevich. Over the years, Rezko also contributed generously to the Governor's campaigns...and was rewarded with appointments to state boards and commissions. . . .

Fitton concludes: "Corrupting the state government of Illinois is bad enough; but now the question is whether Tony Rezko has corrupted Barack Obama, the man who may be our next president."

And the list of scandals--or potential scandals--continues:

• There is the matter of his long-standing relationship with the firebrand and, apparently, anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright.


• And his relationship with William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground who set off bombs in the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. (According to Fitton, they claimed "credit" for 25 such bombs.) Ayers was quoted in the New York Times as saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
  
  Is the quote about not having "done enough" taken out of context? I can imagine. But then having a presidential candidate associating with an unrepentant anti-government bomber?


• Some seriously shady-looking stock deals.
  

  Two months after he took his Senate seat in 2005, the Senator purchased $50,000 worth of stock in highly speculative ventures, whose major investors were some of his biggest campaign contributors.
  
  One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation that Senator Obama pushed just two weeks after purchasing $5,000 worth of its stock.
  
  When he was working to pass that legislation, just whose interest was the Senator advancing . . . his constituents', the company's, or his own?

Suddenly, in the context of all of these issues, even supposing Palin engaged in some--what well-wishers might like to call "white lying"--I sense Palin's sins probably pale in comparison.

BUT. What really bothers me: why can't the United States field some better-qualified candidates for president and vice president. Are these really the best we have?

Your opinions, please!

I got another phone call Saturday morning seeking my opinions related to the presidential race. This one was from a political research group at Quinnipiac University. I wasn't sure I really wanted to answer their questions. All the way through, they wanted me to choose one of two possible answers: "Which: This or that?" --And I kept saying, "Neither. I prefer _____." --And I'd mention a third alternative. Or something in between.

"Obama or McCain?" --"How about Barr . . . or Paul? . . . But if you force me to choose between Obama or McCain, I guess it's McCain . . . holding my nose."

"What should the president promote: development of renewable fuels or oil drilling?" --"Ummmm. I'm not convinced that's the president's responsibility. But if I have to, . . . Oh, good grief! . . . How about both?!"

"Renewable fuels or nuclear energy?" --"!!!!!"

Another McCain/Obama preference question. --"Y'know, Obama really scares me. Actually, it's not so much Obama himself. It's the American people who are all ga-ga over him . . . for what? He reminds me too much of certain other historical figures who were voted into office on popular euphoria only to cause unimaginable havoc. . . ." --I was thinking of Hitler, in particular. But there have been others.

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, wrote an insightful piece first published in various national news outlets on Saturday. (Our Rocky Mountain News didn't run it till this morning. But I think he's nailed it when he spoke of "Obama’s elevated opinion of himself."

There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Obama is

• a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name,


• a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times.

As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever

• produced a single notable piece of scholarship?


• Written a single memorable article?

His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly.

In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.”

--Sorry. Politics generally bores me. I didn't see Obama's performance. But if Krauthammer is expressing anything near the truth, I would have to agree: Obama's opinion of himself is beyond amazing. It's quite scary, actually. Guys like this don't need anyone else. They know their destiny . . . and if we, the people, aren't willing to stop them early, they will ensure we participate in the destiny they have waiting for us.

Are you ready to meet yours?

As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down. He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘Merci beaucoup.’” Obama speaks no French.

As with other dictators and tyrants of recent memory, perhaps the American people should pay attention to what Krauthammer notes about Obama the stern taskmaster. Should he become president, he will require much of us. And of himself? . . .

His wife assures us that, . . . “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is? We are getting to know.

Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

And then there's this from "Little Green Footballs": "Obama Shunning Foreign Media."

Christoph von Marschall of Germany’s Der Tagesspiegel says the Barack Obama campaign has been making sure Obama doesn’t have to answer any real questions from the international media: Snubbed by Obama.

Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama’s fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America’s image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists. When the press plane leaves tonight for his trip, there will be, as far as I know, no foreign media aboard. The Obama campaign has refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate.

As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad. This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections. Even so, Obama’s opponents have managed to make at least a small amount of time for international journalists. John McCain has given many interviews. Hillary Clinton gave a few. President Bush regularly holds round-table interviews with media from the countries to which he travels. Only Obama dismisses us so consistently.

This spring Obama allowed at least one foreign reporter on trips to Ohio and Texas. But as the campaign has progressed, access has become more difficult for foreign correspondents. E-mail inquiries get no reply, phone calls are not returned. My colleagues and I know: We are last in line. We don’t matter.

My take: his staff is desperately worried that the candidate will make a gaffe, as soon as he ventures into uncharted territory. Foreign reporters tend to ask questions about ... you know ... foreign stuff.

Is Ron Paul crazy . . . or brilliant?

If you watched the Republican "debate" last night, or you listen to the media, Ron Paul "doesn't have a chance." But he seems to think he does. . . .

Why?

Take a look!

Interesting perspective!

From: mail@ronpaul2008.cpro30.com On Behalf Of Ron Paul 2008
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Ron Paul Supporters
Subject: Message from Ron

January 28, 2008

When I started this campaign more than a year ago, I was a somewhat reluctant candidate. I knew our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity was the right one for our country, but frankly, I didn't know how many people today would have ears to hear it.

Well, did I learn a lesson! Millions of Americans understand what ails our country, and what is needed to fix it. So, with you at my side, I am in this effort to win. Not only by building the ideas of liberty, but by getting the nomination. Our opponents would call that nuts -- you know, the advocates of more inflation, more spending, more taxes, more war. But let me explain why they are, as usual, all wet.

For one thing, for the first time since 1952, we are headed towards a brokered convention. Instead of a coronation of one of the establishment candidates, the delegates, influenced by the people, will decide. And I am afraid that this will take place in a time of heightened economic crisis. That means even more Americans will be ready to hear our message. But it also means I am really going to need your help.

One would never know this from the mainstream media, but we've only had a few primaries and caucuses, and even after the extremely important date of February 5th, we will still have more than half to go. And the Republican nominee will not be decided by the popular vote among the "leading candidates" in a few states also handpicked by the media. The nominee will be decided by the delegates. So let me tell you a little about our "under-the-radar" strategy to get those delegates.

On "Super Tuesday," February 5th, there will be 22 primaries and caucuses. I have a hunch that we're going to do very well. But, of course, the media and the rest of the establishment refuse to recognize that. It's the attitude of the small child who covers his eyes to make something scary go away. But we are not going away.

While the media focus on the couple of states they claim are important, we're competing everywhere. And the reason that we're able to do that is because of your grassroots support. You all are an asset that no other campaign has: donors, and activists who want no special deals from the government, just the Constitution.

We're competing very strongly in all the caucus states, and in all other states where delegates are up for grabs. And we're going to keep picking up delegates. Our strategy's already working.

And we're committed to winning states. I have little doubt that if we can double our efforts in this coming week, we're going to grab many delegates from other candidates. Then we'll start getting ready for the biggest moment of all - the convention in September.

The path to the convention is twisty, however. When we were in Iowa, we got 10% of the vote. But no delegates were awarded that night. That's because voters didn't directly choose national convention delegates; they selected the county and state delegates who will make that decision. And if another candidate like Mike Huckabee is no longer in the race at the time of the state convention in June, his delegates are free to support whomever they want. If we work extra hard, we can convert them into delegates for our campaign!

A similar thing happened in Nevada. We won 14% of the straw poll vote that the media reported on, but what they didn't tell you was that we may have gotten up to a third of Nevada's delegates to their county conventions! I always laughed when I heard some people say Nevada didn't matter. Nevada chooses more delegates to the national convention than South Carolina.

So, while the media will focus on the results from Florida, and probably take down the campaign of my friend Rudy in the process, those results are less important to you and me. Let them fight in Florida while we bring our message to Americans in other areas, like the economically hard-hit state of Maine.

We want to win as many delegates to the Republican National Convention as possible, even if other campaigns don't see some areas of the country as "important. But in this work, I need your help. Help me get many, many delegates to this historic convention, by these three methods.

1. Donate. Your generous contributions are essential if we're going to keep going until September. We need, frankly $5 million by February 5 to run more TV and radio ads in the Super Tuesday states. Your help means everything: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.

2. Canvass. You can help us identify those who support our message in your precinct. You can help us to convert others, too. After all, your neighbors pay attention to you. I am going to visit as much of the country as I can, but I need you as my partner in your area: https://voters.ronpaul2008.com.

3. ASK others to sign-up on our website. I meet so many people on the campaign trail who don't even receive my letters! I've told my campaign to make communication with you, the engine of all this, much better. But if people don't sign up for my e-mails, that won't happen. If you could just get one extra person to sign-up, that would be great. More would be tremendous.

Help me by forwarding this e-mail to every other Ron Paul supporter you know, and urging them to join our efforts! https://www.ronpaul2008.com/join.

We've come so far, but now the fun is really starting! I have a feeling the mainstream media will move from ignoring us to attacking us. But that will be a sign of our success. Join me as we continue this great movement into year two, and to a hot convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. We can do it!

Sincerely,

Ron

Ron Paul for President????

This will be a very strange post, I expect.

I was doing some research this morning about blogging and, in my research, was urged to consider using Technorati links of some type. (Confession: I know it exists, and there are some kind of links one can utilize in one's blog. But beyond that, I am wholly uninformed at this moment.)

Anyway, I thought I should visit www.technorati.com to discover what the advice might be about.

I got to their home page and was astonished to find "ron paul" as the--the--top search today . . . above "youtube," "myspace," "jerry falwell," "paris hilton." . . .


[Technorati home page at 12:15 p.m. MST, Tuesday, May 15, 2007]


[Technorati home page at 4:45 p.m. MST, Tuesday, May 15, 2007]

"How did that happen?" I wondered to myself. I mean, I know who Ron Paul is. His campaign people have been sending me financial appeals for years. (Probably because I got on a Libertarian mailing list at one time.)

But the guy, though highly principled, is so . . . so . . . out of the limelight, isn't he?

So how and/or why is he at the top of the blogosphere?

I still haven't figured it out. But I found an amazing compilation video of his answers to the questions put to him at the last Republican candidates' presidential debate. And I'm impressed.

Can Paul pull off an upset, somehow? Or is he more valuable as a (lone) member of a (truly) "faithful opposition" to whichever party is in power?

Hillary, Part 2

Denny Hatch wrote a follow-up to his comments on Hillary Clinton's suggestion that, as president, she would to "take [the oil companies'] profits" and use them for her own pet projects.

His comments came in the midst of an article about the power of fear to motivate people.

Who can forget the gaffe that may have cost John Kerry the presidency when he said the following about the senate vote on the Iraq War, "I voted for it before I voted against it." The Republicans replayed that line over and over again with lethal effect, scaring the voters into believing Kerry was a flip-flopper and therefore a danger. When Kerry refused to immediately dispute the Swift Boaters' charges that his Vietnam medals were not earned, voters perceived that maybe those allegations were true and feared that Kerry was a liar and a coward that could not be trusted to support our troops in Iraq.

The 2004 presidential election was won on voter fear of John Kerry.

Hillary Clinton is in for the same treatment—the result of the 20-second gaffe at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting in Washington early in February—that I mentioned in last week's edition of this e-zine.

Here is the fear-based, 30-second spot I would run were I managing the campaign of Barack Obama or Rudolph Giuliani:

[SIGN ACROSS TOP OF SCREEN THROUGHOUT THE 30-SECOND SPOT]

Should Hillary Clinton Be President?

[ON SMALL TV SCREEN INSET, SENATOR CLINTON SPEAKS TO DNC. USE THE JERKY, PRIMITIVE YouTube.com VERSION TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION IT WAS A HIDDEN CAMERA CAPTURING AN OFF-THE-RECORD SPEECH]

The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund . . .

[SOUND FADES TO SILENCE]

[ON SCREEN, WE SEE CLINTON CONTINUING TO SPEAK. NO SOUND]

[GIULIANI VOICE OVER]

In June 2005, the Supreme Court said that the government could seize your home and turn it into condos in order to raise more tax money.

Now Hillary Clinton wants to seize business profits. What will Hillary try to seize next? Your investments? Your savings? Your bank account? Your salary?

This is more than scary. It's un-American.

I'm Rudy Giuliani and I approved this message.

[LOGO]
GIULIANI IN '08

Beware your fears! Don't let them push you into doing something foolish. [I say this by way of encouragement to me!]