By Rick Morris
Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.
But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.
All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.
However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.
As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.
Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).
The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.
So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Definitions are corrupt
By Rick Morris
Last month, television viewers witnessed a shocking spectacle: a horrific storm blowing straight through downtown Atlanta. Among other notable characteristics of the carnage, a good hunk of the roof was blown off the Georgia Dome during the SEC men's basketball tournament.
That night, a bunch of egghead scientists went before the cameras and refused to call the storm a tornado, "pending more examination of the facts." The next day, they reluctantly concluded that, yes, it probably had been a tornado.
Like most people who witnessed that anal-retentive idiocy, I said, "WHAT???" All that episode proved, however, was that scientists operate on the same basis as economists: clinging to technically-correct interpretations of illegitimate definitions.
Amid that chaos that the subprime mortgage meltdown inflicted on our economy -- with the collapse of a ginormous old-school institution that had to be crash-landed by the Fed so it didn't cause a global crisis -- with foreign institutions who have grown increasing restless at the prospect of continuing to finance our monstrous federal debt -- there are still economic pundits, mostly Republicans (because there's a Republican in the White House -- not an economic conservative, but still a Republican who must be defended to the death, apparently), who either deny that we're in a recession or are necessarily headed for one.
It is technically true that it's not yet proven that we're in a recession, inasmuch as the technical definition mandates two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. And it is true that the media sensationalizes bad economic news, albeit no more than they habitually emphasize the lurid on topics ranging from Britney Spears to Pacman Jones. But regardless of whether every economic horror story reported on meets the smell test, even your average mouth-breather in the mass media is closer to the truth of what's really going on than some jerk in an ivory tower trying to get attention by telling you that the numbers say that things aren't so bad.
By the standards of pedantic economists who use definitions at complete variance with how the average American understands modern vocabulary, the words themselves are rendered meaningless. I know this firsthand. I graduated from college when the George Bush Recession Caused by Caving In To Tom Foley On Tax Hikes was in full bloom, but apologists like Rush Limbaugh have always pointed to figures that indicated it was over very quickly and was not severe. Of course, why Limbaugh and so-called conservative economists have so consistently shilled for two generations of Bush presidents who had anything but a well-rounded conservative economic record remains an eternal mystery.
Hey, even the official inflation rate has only hovered around 4% each of the last few months. If the official inflation rate were a dude, I'd love to take him to the grocery store and the gas pump so I could call him a freaking liar before I punched him in the face. And the unemployment rate is officially only 5.1% right now, but it doesn't count people who are not employed but also not eligible for unemployment compensation. Nor does it count people working a measly part-time job because they can't find anything else or a couple of crappy part-time jobs. I know people who fit all of the above criteria in this "not yet a recession" period, just like how I lived it when I graduated in a "non recession" lo those many years ago. While Mark Twain's suspicion of statistics would probably make him a horrible rotisserie baseball player, it summed up perfectly our government's perennially-cynical attempts to cook the books on any number that could reflect poorly on the present time.
So the next time you hear Larry Kudlow (a man with a brilliant grasp of economic growth but no concept of how our country's debt will choke us some day and a tin ear for how his "technically correct" definitions of tough times are received by average voters) or some other "expert" pontificating about how conditions really aren't so bad because this equation on this piece of paper says so -- resolve to kick them in the groin if you ever get to meet them in person.
Last month, television viewers witnessed a shocking spectacle: a horrific storm blowing straight through downtown Atlanta. Among other notable characteristics of the carnage, a good hunk of the roof was blown off the Georgia Dome during the SEC men's basketball tournament.
That night, a bunch of egghead scientists went before the cameras and refused to call the storm a tornado, "pending more examination of the facts." The next day, they reluctantly concluded that, yes, it probably had been a tornado.
Like most people who witnessed that anal-retentive idiocy, I said, "WHAT???" All that episode proved, however, was that scientists operate on the same basis as economists: clinging to technically-correct interpretations of illegitimate definitions.
Amid that chaos that the subprime mortgage meltdown inflicted on our economy -- with the collapse of a ginormous old-school institution that had to be crash-landed by the Fed so it didn't cause a global crisis -- with foreign institutions who have grown increasing restless at the prospect of continuing to finance our monstrous federal debt -- there are still economic pundits, mostly Republicans (because there's a Republican in the White House -- not an economic conservative, but still a Republican who must be defended to the death, apparently), who either deny that we're in a recession or are necessarily headed for one.
It is technically true that it's not yet proven that we're in a recession, inasmuch as the technical definition mandates two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. And it is true that the media sensationalizes bad economic news, albeit no more than they habitually emphasize the lurid on topics ranging from Britney Spears to Pacman Jones. But regardless of whether every economic horror story reported on meets the smell test, even your average mouth-breather in the mass media is closer to the truth of what's really going on than some jerk in an ivory tower trying to get attention by telling you that the numbers say that things aren't so bad.
By the standards of pedantic economists who use definitions at complete variance with how the average American understands modern vocabulary, the words themselves are rendered meaningless. I know this firsthand. I graduated from college when the George Bush Recession Caused by Caving In To Tom Foley On Tax Hikes was in full bloom, but apologists like Rush Limbaugh have always pointed to figures that indicated it was over very quickly and was not severe. Of course, why Limbaugh and so-called conservative economists have so consistently shilled for two generations of Bush presidents who had anything but a well-rounded conservative economic record remains an eternal mystery.
Hey, even the official inflation rate has only hovered around 4% each of the last few months. If the official inflation rate were a dude, I'd love to take him to the grocery store and the gas pump so I could call him a freaking liar before I punched him in the face. And the unemployment rate is officially only 5.1% right now, but it doesn't count people who are not employed but also not eligible for unemployment compensation. Nor does it count people working a measly part-time job because they can't find anything else or a couple of crappy part-time jobs. I know people who fit all of the above criteria in this "not yet a recession" period, just like how I lived it when I graduated in a "non recession" lo those many years ago. While Mark Twain's suspicion of statistics would probably make him a horrible rotisserie baseball player, it summed up perfectly our government's perennially-cynical attempts to cook the books on any number that could reflect poorly on the present time.
So the next time you hear Larry Kudlow (a man with a brilliant grasp of economic growth but no concept of how our country's debt will choke us some day and a tin ear for how his "technically correct" definitions of tough times are received by average voters) or some other "expert" pontificating about how conditions really aren't so bad because this equation on this piece of paper says so -- resolve to kick them in the groin if you ever get to meet them in person.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later
By Rick Morris
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it
By Rick Morris
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ron Paul update
By Rick Morris
As promised previously, I'm addressing my earlier report about Ron Paul dropping out of the presidential race. I acted at the time based on information dropped on me exclusively (to others shortly thereafter, but to me first) by a source connected to the congressional race down in Texas. As we get closer to the primary, it has become apparent that the odds of this coming to fruition have plummeted -- plus a review of Paul's late FEC filings shows that he has raised a mountain of money for the congressional race (due, no doubt, in no small part, to my story getting used for fundraising purposes -- you're welcome, Ron!) in the late stages of the campaign, thus removing a key justification for withdrawing from the presidential race (the ability to legally move the caysh to the congressional race). So I will forgo waiting through the weekend to see what happens and simply declare now that the news previously reported by me (not us collectively, only me) will not come to pass -- as I promised that I would if these circumstances materialized.
I make no apologies whatsoever for this matter. I reported news that was provided to me by a source and my decision to accept that information didn't hurt anyone but me (if you don't believe me, you should see how much of my precious time and energy has been taken up by dealing with abusive spamming from the enraged no-life tin-foil hat crowd) -- clearly, it did not hurt the Paul campaign, which used it as a rallying point (and it was not intended to hurt anyone, but you'll never convince the conspiracy nuts of that) to raise big money -- so I see no need to shed crocodile tears when I did nothing immoral. While this blog covers a multiplicity of subjects and is primarily more opinion-oriented as opposed to aspiring to break hard news, we will run with exclusive news items in the future if circumstances dictate. I can say in all humility that I'm going to learn from this going forward in terms of evaluating material from sources. Anyone who wants to gloat at that admission is a fool because we should all be trying to learn from experiences and learn how to operate smarter on a daily basis. My report allowed the Paul campaign to recharge its finances and efforts (unintentionally, as I am not a Paul partisan, but you probably already knew that!), so if anyone still wants to hate on me even after the influx of "Morris money" allows him to come back and win big -- well, that's on them.
As promised previously, I'm addressing my earlier report about Ron Paul dropping out of the presidential race. I acted at the time based on information dropped on me exclusively (to others shortly thereafter, but to me first) by a source connected to the congressional race down in Texas. As we get closer to the primary, it has become apparent that the odds of this coming to fruition have plummeted -- plus a review of Paul's late FEC filings shows that he has raised a mountain of money for the congressional race (due, no doubt, in no small part, to my story getting used for fundraising purposes -- you're welcome, Ron!) in the late stages of the campaign, thus removing a key justification for withdrawing from the presidential race (the ability to legally move the caysh to the congressional race). So I will forgo waiting through the weekend to see what happens and simply declare now that the news previously reported by me (not us collectively, only me) will not come to pass -- as I promised that I would if these circumstances materialized.
I make no apologies whatsoever for this matter. I reported news that was provided to me by a source and my decision to accept that information didn't hurt anyone but me (if you don't believe me, you should see how much of my precious time and energy has been taken up by dealing with abusive spamming from the enraged no-life tin-foil hat crowd) -- clearly, it did not hurt the Paul campaign, which used it as a rallying point (and it was not intended to hurt anyone, but you'll never convince the conspiracy nuts of that) to raise big money -- so I see no need to shed crocodile tears when I did nothing immoral. While this blog covers a multiplicity of subjects and is primarily more opinion-oriented as opposed to aspiring to break hard news, we will run with exclusive news items in the future if circumstances dictate. I can say in all humility that I'm going to learn from this going forward in terms of evaluating material from sources. Anyone who wants to gloat at that admission is a fool because we should all be trying to learn from experiences and learn how to operate smarter on a daily basis. My report allowed the Paul campaign to recharge its finances and efforts (unintentionally, as I am not a Paul partisan, but you probably already knew that!), so if anyone still wants to hate on me even after the influx of "Morris money" allows him to come back and win big -- well, that's on them.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Jean Schmidt endorsed by 2,144,597th most popular site on the Internet
By Nate Noy
For those of you that don’t know Alexa.com is the equivalent for ranking Internet traffic that the Nielsen ratings are for television.
Below are the current rankings for the sites that have covered the Ohio-2 primary:
Thefdhlounge.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 814,365
Thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 1,279,563
Nixguy.com has a traffic rank of: 1,860,957
Massdiscussion.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 2,144,597
To the defense of Nixguy I believe he does blog at another site and he has pretty much stayed behind the scenes with his support of Jean Schmidt this time around.
Bill Sloat at Thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com has done a sound job reporting the truth about Jean Schmidt and encouraging voters to select the one true conservative candidate in this election Tom Brinkman.
Our blog of course has enjoyed much success due largely to the tireless efforts of Rick Morris and the other FDH Lounge Dignitaries who have been busy blogging about subjects other than my favorite topic: Jean Schmidt. (In fact, our ranking for the last week is up over 200,000 spots.)
That brings us of course to the site that currently is Jean Schmidt’s biggest fan: Matt Hurley at WMD. The one good thing I will say about Matt is that he is man enough to let me post on his blog without deleting my comments. Of course, some people may ask: why do I spend my time posting on a blog that is 1,330,232 spots behind us in the rankings? Well, my response is that I hope somewhere among the tumbleweeds that make up Matt’s audience is the occasional truth seeker.
I KNOW for a fact that my support of Tom Brinkman will bring him at least 298 votes this primary (that’s the number of people that actually wrote in my name in 2006 against Schmidt.) Since Matt does not even live in Ohio-2, and not many people read his blog anyway, I wonder what his impact for Schmidt will be?
For those of you that don’t know Alexa.com is the equivalent for ranking Internet traffic that the Nielsen ratings are for television.
Below are the current rankings for the sites that have covered the Ohio-2 primary:
Thefdhlounge.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 814,365
Thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 1,279,563
Nixguy.com has a traffic rank of: 1,860,957
Massdiscussion.blogspot.com has a traffic rank of: 2,144,597
To the defense of Nixguy I believe he does blog at another site and he has pretty much stayed behind the scenes with his support of Jean Schmidt this time around.
Bill Sloat at Thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com has done a sound job reporting the truth about Jean Schmidt and encouraging voters to select the one true conservative candidate in this election Tom Brinkman.
Our blog of course has enjoyed much success due largely to the tireless efforts of Rick Morris and the other FDH Lounge Dignitaries who have been busy blogging about subjects other than my favorite topic: Jean Schmidt. (In fact, our ranking for the last week is up over 200,000 spots.)
That brings us of course to the site that currently is Jean Schmidt’s biggest fan: Matt Hurley at WMD. The one good thing I will say about Matt is that he is man enough to let me post on his blog without deleting my comments. Of course, some people may ask: why do I spend my time posting on a blog that is 1,330,232 spots behind us in the rankings? Well, my response is that I hope somewhere among the tumbleweeds that make up Matt’s audience is the occasional truth seeker.
I KNOW for a fact that my support of Tom Brinkman will bring him at least 298 votes this primary (that’s the number of people that actually wrote in my name in 2006 against Schmidt.) Since Matt does not even live in Ohio-2, and not many people read his blog anyway, I wonder what his impact for Schmidt will be?
Jean Schmidt’s shill Nathan Bailey
By Nate Noy
Quick question: if you were an unpopular and corrupt Congresswomen how would you try to siphon off some of the anti-incumbent vote in a dangerously close primary election?
Answer: find a shill to help split the anti-Schmidt vote.
Below is what the Cincinnati Enquirer had to say about Nathan Bailey:
Nathan N. Bailey
Bailey, 26, is an accountant who lives in Stonelick Township in Clermont County.
His campaign has been chiefly an online effort, with Facebook and MySpace pages. He said he joined the race largely to encourage young conservative Republicans like himself to vote. He said he admires Schmidt, and that his chief advantage over her would be “I could serve for 40 years.”
Bailey said he has spent $1,355, but accepted only $250 in donations, turning down other offers.
I’ll have to give a “hat’s off” to Schmidt and her corrupt cronies on this one. Everyone knows there will be 50-55% of the voters next Tuesday that won’t pull the lever for Jean Schmidt on a bet. Her ONLY prayer to beat Tom Brinkman is to hope the people in Pike, Scioto, Brown, and Adams Counties (the four counties Bob McEwen trounced her in back in the 2006 primary) accidentally vote for Bailey instead of Brinkman.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that “admires Schmidt” is either as corrupt and dishonest as she is, or a shill for her. I hope in the case of Nathan Bailey it is simply the latter. However, once Schmidt is indicted, convicted, or whatever this summer anyone that has been duped into supporting her will certainly feel like the world’s biggest fool. I just hope the voters in Ohio-2 next Tuesday are educated enough to vote for the ONLY OPTION on the ballot: Tom Brinkman.
Quick question: if you were an unpopular and corrupt Congresswomen how would you try to siphon off some of the anti-incumbent vote in a dangerously close primary election?
Answer: find a shill to help split the anti-Schmidt vote.
Below is what the Cincinnati Enquirer had to say about Nathan Bailey:
Nathan N. Bailey
Bailey, 26, is an accountant who lives in Stonelick Township in Clermont County.
His campaign has been chiefly an online effort, with Facebook and MySpace pages. He said he joined the race largely to encourage young conservative Republicans like himself to vote. He said he admires Schmidt, and that his chief advantage over her would be “I could serve for 40 years.”
Bailey said he has spent $1,355, but accepted only $250 in donations, turning down other offers.
I’ll have to give a “hat’s off” to Schmidt and her corrupt cronies on this one. Everyone knows there will be 50-55% of the voters next Tuesday that won’t pull the lever for Jean Schmidt on a bet. Her ONLY prayer to beat Tom Brinkman is to hope the people in Pike, Scioto, Brown, and Adams Counties (the four counties Bob McEwen trounced her in back in the 2006 primary) accidentally vote for Bailey instead of Brinkman.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that “admires Schmidt” is either as corrupt and dishonest as she is, or a shill for her. I hope in the case of Nathan Bailey it is simply the latter. However, once Schmidt is indicted, convicted, or whatever this summer anyone that has been duped into supporting her will certainly feel like the world’s biggest fool. I just hope the voters in Ohio-2 next Tuesday are educated enough to vote for the ONLY OPTION on the ballot: Tom Brinkman.
Jean Schmidt 409th most powerful member of Congress
By Nate Noy
The website Congress.org has always been a great way for DC insiders to gauge where they should be spending their time trying to influence legislation. Capitol Advantage is the company that compiles and publishes the rankings and is well respected as an independent and unbiased source.
Everyone of course hopes that “their” representative has some pull in Washington, so my question of the day is this: does Jean Schmidt have any “pull” whatsoever?
First let’s look at the data for the members of Congress from Ohio:
Name Rank in State Score Rank in House
Rep. Boehner (R-OH-8) 1 39.09 5
Rep. Kaptur (D-OH-9) 2 23.53 64
Rep. Jones (D-OH-11) 3 22.02 79
Rep. Regula (R-OH-16) 4 18.00 150
Rep. Ryan (D-OH-17) 5 16.09 179
Rep. Kucinich (D-OH-10) 6 15.09 198
Rep. Hobson (R-OH-7) 7 14.53 207
Rep. Sutton (D-OH-13) 8 14.00 226
Rep. Space (D-OH-18) 9 12.50 252
Rep. Wilson (D-OH-6) 10 11.50 290
Rep. LaTourette (R-OH-14) 11 11.28 293
Rep. Chabot (R-OH-1) 12 11.03 296
Rep. Pryce (R-OH-15) 14 9.53 324
Rep. Turner (R-OH-3) 14 9.53 324
Rep. Tiberi (R-OH-12) 16 9.28 335
Rep. Schmidt (R-OH-2) 17 6.50 409
Rep. Jordan (R-OH-4) 18 2.38 435
No real shocks here, Boehner of course a Minority Leader is near the top and followed by members with significant tenure. As expected Schmidt is near the bottom.
A closer look at how Schmidt obtains her ranking:
The rankings are broken into three subcategories:
Position – Based on numbers of years served in Congress as well as committee assignments and leadership positions the Member of Congress holds. Much of the power a member wields is directly a result of their seniority on a committee or in the chamber as a whole.
Indirect Influence – Refers to the action taken by a member of Congress in 2006 to attempt to affect the outcome of an issue or bill by proactive means. For example this may include, appearing on a Sunday morning talk show, getting newspaper interviews or leading a caucus such as the Congressional Women’s Caucus demonstrates that the Member of Congress influenced the legislative agenda of Congress. This could also include raising and donating money to colleagues or challengers in an attempt to gain allies and support for election to leadership positions or for passing legislation.
Legislation – Refers to the success at each stage of the lawmaking process of the passage of a bill into law in 2006. Members receive points when their bills are passed out of committee, successfully passed on the floor in their chamber, passed by the other chamber, and then signed into law by the President. This also includes attempts to shape the bill through amendments.
For Position Jean scores a 13. A point of comparison would be Zack Space who is a first term Congressman, he scores a 27. Charlie Wilson, another first-termer, scored a 25.
For both Influence and Legislation Schmidt scores a whopping 0, notta, nil, nothing! In other words Schmidt has no pull whatsoever in the media and has failed to introduce or cosponsor any legislation with success.
Basically when Jean Schmidt opens her mouth no one ever listens or cares what she has to say, unless of course she is once again making a fool of herself. NICE, just the kind of “representation” Ohio-2 deserves, but I guess if you people vote for her on Tuesday then you will in fact get what you deserve. It is just a shame that the fools that vote for and support Schmidt subject the rest of us to her uselessness.
The website Congress.org has always been a great way for DC insiders to gauge where they should be spending their time trying to influence legislation. Capitol Advantage is the company that compiles and publishes the rankings and is well respected as an independent and unbiased source.
Everyone of course hopes that “their” representative has some pull in Washington, so my question of the day is this: does Jean Schmidt have any “pull” whatsoever?
First let’s look at the data for the members of Congress from Ohio:
Name Rank in State Score Rank in House
Rep. Boehner (R-OH-8) 1 39.09 5
Rep. Kaptur (D-OH-9) 2 23.53 64
Rep. Jones (D-OH-11) 3 22.02 79
Rep. Regula (R-OH-16) 4 18.00 150
Rep. Ryan (D-OH-17) 5 16.09 179
Rep. Kucinich (D-OH-10) 6 15.09 198
Rep. Hobson (R-OH-7) 7 14.53 207
Rep. Sutton (D-OH-13) 8 14.00 226
Rep. Space (D-OH-18) 9 12.50 252
Rep. Wilson (D-OH-6) 10 11.50 290
Rep. LaTourette (R-OH-14) 11 11.28 293
Rep. Chabot (R-OH-1) 12 11.03 296
Rep. Pryce (R-OH-15) 14 9.53 324
Rep. Turner (R-OH-3) 14 9.53 324
Rep. Tiberi (R-OH-12) 16 9.28 335
Rep. Schmidt (R-OH-2) 17 6.50 409
Rep. Jordan (R-OH-4) 18 2.38 435
No real shocks here, Boehner of course a Minority Leader is near the top and followed by members with significant tenure. As expected Schmidt is near the bottom.
A closer look at how Schmidt obtains her ranking:
The rankings are broken into three subcategories:
Position – Based on numbers of years served in Congress as well as committee assignments and leadership positions the Member of Congress holds. Much of the power a member wields is directly a result of their seniority on a committee or in the chamber as a whole.
Indirect Influence – Refers to the action taken by a member of Congress in 2006 to attempt to affect the outcome of an issue or bill by proactive means. For example this may include, appearing on a Sunday morning talk show, getting newspaper interviews or leading a caucus such as the Congressional Women’s Caucus demonstrates that the Member of Congress influenced the legislative agenda of Congress. This could also include raising and donating money to colleagues or challengers in an attempt to gain allies and support for election to leadership positions or for passing legislation.
Legislation – Refers to the success at each stage of the lawmaking process of the passage of a bill into law in 2006. Members receive points when their bills are passed out of committee, successfully passed on the floor in their chamber, passed by the other chamber, and then signed into law by the President. This also includes attempts to shape the bill through amendments.
For Position Jean scores a 13. A point of comparison would be Zack Space who is a first term Congressman, he scores a 27. Charlie Wilson, another first-termer, scored a 25.
For both Influence and Legislation Schmidt scores a whopping 0, notta, nil, nothing! In other words Schmidt has no pull whatsoever in the media and has failed to introduce or cosponsor any legislation with success.
Basically when Jean Schmidt opens her mouth no one ever listens or cares what she has to say, unless of course she is once again making a fool of herself. NICE, just the kind of “representation” Ohio-2 deserves, but I guess if you people vote for her on Tuesday then you will in fact get what you deserve. It is just a shame that the fools that vote for and support Schmidt subject the rest of us to her uselessness.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
RIP William F. Buckley Jr.
By Rick Morris
Today saw the passing of an icon, one of the truly influential figures of the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps fittingly, William F. Buckley Jr. passed away at his desk, probably preparing another brilliant column from his incomparable mind.
Almost singlehandedly, he helped forge what would come to be known as the conservative movement in the mid-1950s, when the New Deal was still the dominant influence in national politics and good old placid Ike was presiding over a solidification of the second American Revolution that FDR instituted by executive fiat two decades before (just as Ike's VP Tricky Dick Nixon would end up strengthening LBJ's Great Society in the early '70s). There was no countervailing force in the USA standing up for the concept of limited government and a muscular, forward-thinking approach in the Cold War. Bill Buckley pioneered the power that would capture the White House in the form of Reaganism a quarter-century later.
There were times when he would take stands that would annoy his friends and followers. I myself was annoyed by a few of his columns, but that's probably not too bad considering that I've read hundreds of them. What he accomplished was as unique as it was impressive: he pulled together strains from disparate sources and created a coherent intellectual and political movement that will outlive him for centuries, even though it is severely bruised at the moment.
I was influenced greatly by his National Review magazine and I was thrilled as a young public policy intern in D.C. to find a treasure trove of old NRs boxed up in the basement of the living quarters I inhabited at the time. I wasn't permitted to take any of them with me, but I greatly enjoyed delving into the chance to see how Buckley and his writers were assessing the important events of the Cold War era as they unfolded. That same year, as a young firebrand attending the Young Americans for Freedom national convention, I had the pleasure of hearing Buckley speak to our banquet. I was thrilled for my good friend Stu Grimes, who had become a national officer of the group and consequently got to be photographed shaking hands with the legend himself. YAF is an important although overlooked part of the Buckley legacy, as he helped found the group and write one of the most important philosophical statements of our time, The Sharon Statement:
"In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
The outpouring today on National Review Online is heartening and may portend the beginning of the revival of NR and, dare we hope, perhaps the broader movement it represents. Any column written about him deserves to be read, but I especially suggest the following:
^ the symposium featuring mini-columns from many right-wing luminaries
^ John O'Sullivan's take on how WFB helped to win the Cold War
^ the NRO editorial noting his passing
^ thoughts from many of his appreciative fans
I'm heartened to read in the tributes such an awareness of the specific functions he performed in terms of helping to reshape American political thought. At a time when the conservative movement has lost its way, maybe the refocusing that WFB's passing has brought can regenerate it for a new generation. If you believe in Providential acts as I do, that might have even been the cause of the timing. We can only hope so, and the old genius would no doubt see this as the ultimate tribute. Godspeed Bill Buckley.
Today saw the passing of an icon, one of the truly influential figures of the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps fittingly, William F. Buckley Jr. passed away at his desk, probably preparing another brilliant column from his incomparable mind.
Almost singlehandedly, he helped forge what would come to be known as the conservative movement in the mid-1950s, when the New Deal was still the dominant influence in national politics and good old placid Ike was presiding over a solidification of the second American Revolution that FDR instituted by executive fiat two decades before (just as Ike's VP Tricky Dick Nixon would end up strengthening LBJ's Great Society in the early '70s). There was no countervailing force in the USA standing up for the concept of limited government and a muscular, forward-thinking approach in the Cold War. Bill Buckley pioneered the power that would capture the White House in the form of Reaganism a quarter-century later.
There were times when he would take stands that would annoy his friends and followers. I myself was annoyed by a few of his columns, but that's probably not too bad considering that I've read hundreds of them. What he accomplished was as unique as it was impressive: he pulled together strains from disparate sources and created a coherent intellectual and political movement that will outlive him for centuries, even though it is severely bruised at the moment.
I was influenced greatly by his National Review magazine and I was thrilled as a young public policy intern in D.C. to find a treasure trove of old NRs boxed up in the basement of the living quarters I inhabited at the time. I wasn't permitted to take any of them with me, but I greatly enjoyed delving into the chance to see how Buckley and his writers were assessing the important events of the Cold War era as they unfolded. That same year, as a young firebrand attending the Young Americans for Freedom national convention, I had the pleasure of hearing Buckley speak to our banquet. I was thrilled for my good friend Stu Grimes, who had become a national officer of the group and consequently got to be photographed shaking hands with the legend himself. YAF is an important although overlooked part of the Buckley legacy, as he helped found the group and write one of the most important philosophical statements of our time, The Sharon Statement:
"In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
We, as young conservatives, believe:
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"
It's because of the esteem I have had for so long for National Review that I have not hesitated to criticize it harshly on this blog during this presidential primary season when I felt it lost its way. To reopen those issues today would be disrespectful to Bill Buckley, but I'll note that I firmly believe that the magazine would have been in much better shape had he not bowed out in 2004 -- although I certainly don't begrudge him his right to take it a bit easier in his golden years with his health declining.The outpouring today on National Review Online is heartening and may portend the beginning of the revival of NR and, dare we hope, perhaps the broader movement it represents. Any column written about him deserves to be read, but I especially suggest the following:
^ the symposium featuring mini-columns from many right-wing luminaries
^ John O'Sullivan's take on how WFB helped to win the Cold War
^ the NRO editorial noting his passing
^ thoughts from many of his appreciative fans
I'm heartened to read in the tributes such an awareness of the specific functions he performed in terms of helping to reshape American political thought. At a time when the conservative movement has lost its way, maybe the refocusing that WFB's passing has brought can regenerate it for a new generation. If you believe in Providential acts as I do, that might have even been the cause of the timing. We can only hope so, and the old genius would no doubt see this as the ultimate tribute. Godspeed Bill Buckley.
Friday, August 17, 2007
The GOP YouTube debate will happen
By Rick Morris
After some doubt, the Republican YouTube presidential debate is now back on, scheduled for November 28. The Pullins Report, a fine online newsletter dealing with all aspects of public policy published by my longtime friend Scott Pullins, has the details. He was part of the Save the Debate coalition dedicated to making sure that the doubts sown by the leading contenders would not be enough to sink the event itself.
As I indicated on The FDH Lounge show when we discussed this event, I believe that the candidates are obliged to attend this debate, but I do believe that they are well within their rights to refuse to answer any asinine agenda questions or anything undignified (i.e. a query from some creep in a snowman's suit). There should be a minimum baseline of dignity for any event, but I believe that these aspirants should show up and keep an open mind on what they will and will not address. I urge the readers of this blog to follow the Save the Debate link and submit questions to be asked.
After some doubt, the Republican YouTube presidential debate is now back on, scheduled for November 28. The Pullins Report, a fine online newsletter dealing with all aspects of public policy published by my longtime friend Scott Pullins, has the details. He was part of the Save the Debate coalition dedicated to making sure that the doubts sown by the leading contenders would not be enough to sink the event itself.
As I indicated on The FDH Lounge show when we discussed this event, I believe that the candidates are obliged to attend this debate, but I do believe that they are well within their rights to refuse to answer any asinine agenda questions or anything undignified (i.e. a query from some creep in a snowman's suit). There should be a minimum baseline of dignity for any event, but I believe that these aspirants should show up and keep an open mind on what they will and will not address. I urge the readers of this blog to follow the Save the Debate link and submit questions to be asked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)