The administration got some good news yesterday, thanks to voters in Alabama and Mississippi who gave Rick Santorum wins in both state's Republican primary elections. Because he may be the ideal candidate for Conservatives, but there's no way he'll beat the incumbent in next November's presidential election. And that's because he'll scare all hell out of the very much needed independents.
What's even more unfortunate for the Republican party is that the economic news keeps getting worse, which should increase their chances of victory -but only if they nominate Mitt Romney whom Conservatives keep dissing and trying to defeat. So, as far as chances of winning the White House goes, they're not only shooting themselves in the foot, they're blowing both their legs off with a cannon.
As far as the economy goes, there's some very interesting data which most folks don't often analyze, if at all, yet affects each of them greatly. First and foremost of course is the spiraling cost of oil, which can be vividly felt by the rapidly increasing cost of fuel. However, it's not only gallons of gas that now cost so much more, it's also raising the price of food, which has gone up about nine percent overall in the past twelve months. And then there's the whole area of transportation, from trucking to air travel and everything else that requires fuel which increases prices across the board.
Yet, despite the pinch that just about everyone's feeling the administration points to statistics to demonstrate what they deem improvement, such as a falling unemployment rate which is now approaching 8%. But, what they leave out of their discussion is the group of folks who've totally given up in frustration and have left the work force count altogether. When you add them back in, the number jumps to 9.7% unemployed and climbing.
The same goes for the current rise in the three major stock indexes which would lead to the belief that things are truly getting better business-wise. However, as it turns out a considerable portion of security purchases are being made by public company's themselves. Many of them are sitting on hordes of dollars they don't want to invest in an economy they don't trust. Consequently, they're taking advantage of artificially low costs of bonds, thanks to the Fed's continual printing of money, and are using the low cost funds to buy back their own stock for future sale at higher prices or mergers and acquisitions.
While the preceding examples are only a small part of the economic damage that's been done over the last five years, mainly due to Democrats efforts to suppress anything having to do with businesses chances of success, the overall negative affect on the general public has been huge. Consequently, the opportunities for a change in administration are also immense.
So, what's really a shame is that social conservatives don't see, understand or care about fiscal issues at all, right up to their "leader" Santorum who knows less about the economy than your average Cocker Spaniel. And because of their narrow-mindedness, they're just about guaranteeing the incumbent another four years in office.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The longer the Republican primary season goes on, and the more delegates Mitt Romney wins , the more his two main rivals strive to establish themselves as true "Conservatives ," hoping that will increase their appeal to those on the far right. Yet, as I've mentioned often before, the net effect of their efforts seem to me to be more harmful to them in the long run than beneficial.
Because while it's true there are many Conservatives in the nation, and certainly in the South, there aren't enough of them to carry a national election, which clearly establishes the need for a candidate to broaden his appeal. And this time around, just about every prediction I've seen concludes that for a Republican win, a significant number of independents votes will be needed. Nonetheless, Santorum and Gingrich willingly grab their brushes and paint themselves further into an idealistic corner, which shrinks their appeal on the broader scale.
In that regard, Santorum in particular is increasing his effort to prove just how he avowed he is in his beliefs, and is attempting to invalidate Romney altogether because, according to Rick, Mitt's record as Massachusetts governor wasn't rigidly conservative enough.
But, on the other hand, Mitt's track record shows that he did an excellent governance job, especially regarding the budget, employment and in management of the state itself. So what that says to me is, he's a guy who's been there, knows how the job really works and isn't simply a bag of hot air. And beyond that, he's also aware that leadership at the top levels is about trying to do what's best for all the people, not just a bunch of single-minded idealists.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Aside from the rapidly rising cost of gas at the pump, there's not much very much of interest in the news. I did notice however, that with each tick up in fuel prices the president loses points in the polls. So perhaps, folks just aren't buying his story that he's not responsible for the increased cost of oil, when the very facts of the matter prove that he certainly is.
Elsewhere I saw a story on CNN's website wherein Rick Santorum blasted nomination rivals for using teleprompters when speaking in public. Here's what he said:
"See, I always believed that when you run for president of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter. Because all you're doing is reading someone else's words to people. Furthering that thought he stated that "prompters should have no place in politics" and said that people should know that a candidate's words haven't been 'focus-grouped' and that the words are the candidate's -not those of 'pollsters and speechwriters.'"
As for me, I think someone should tell Rick that a teleprompter's only a tool for displaying text. And that simply because the words appear on a screen doesn't mean someone other than the speaker wrote them. And along the same lines, I'd have to assume he also dislikes prepared speeches or notes on paper, because they're similar, if not exactly the same. The only difference is, that the technology of teleprompting permits speakers to keep their heads up and face their audience while talking instead of staring down at lecterns or scrambling through piles of notes.
However, I think Santorum's comments provide some valuable insight regarding him personally, because he obviously has problems accepting technological advancement which might explain why so many of his beliefs in other areas are so archaic.His thoughts also indicate that he'd prefer to rely strictly on himself in all cases, which sounds like he thinks he's either the absolute and only expert on all subjects, or a stubborn stick-in-the-mud that refuses input from anyone else, regardless.
In summation, if nothing else, I can certainly understand that there are folks like Santorum who don't understand how to absorb modernity or to let technological advancement help them. Most often, in my experience, those reactions result from either pure ignorance or fear of the unknown. However, in Santorum's situation, I truly think it might have helped him to have learned that just because he thinks some things others do are really terrible doesn't necessarily mean the devil made them do them.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In an article on Fox News website this morning, I once again confirmed my belief that the average politician is either too dumb to walk and chew gum simultaneously, or too crooked to be permitted the power they wield over the public and should be permanently locked up. Here's what the first paragraph said:
"Democrats in Congress increasingly are putting pressure on Wall Street speculators to pull back from the oil markets, effectively blaming them for the unseasonable spike in oil and gas prices -- which has caused a headache for the White House as well as cash-strapped families."
However, as usual, they either have the picture completely upside down due to stupidity or blindness to facts, or are trying to dupe voters into blaming business folks who are simply taking advantage of a market being manipulated by Democrats themselves. Because, what these Dem's seem to have failed to notice, or are simply covering up, is that it's they themselves, and especially their leader, that are specifically responsible for the rocketing price of fuel.
The most recent evidence of direct curtailment of domestic oil production stems from the president's own huge efforts to kill or delay the Keystone pipeline, which by itself will pressure prices down. Then there's the year-long campaign to prevent the return of full-scale drilling in the Gulf. Tie those two factors to the continual increase in regulations, taxes and production hurdles resultant of pandering to environmentalists and you have a nation that's lucky to produce any oil at all.
It also becomes more difficult to lower prices when the Energy Secretary himself testifies before Congress and says he thinks gas at the pump ought to cost nine or ten dollars a gallon as it does in Europe, because he thinks those backward nations have the right idea.
So, when you add all of these factors up -and they're only the ones we see on the surface- there's little doubt about who's responsible for fast rising oil prices, and it isn't simply speculators. Because traders aren't driving the market but are simply responding to the opportunity arising from the president's wishes to drive U. S. production down and pump prices up.
Consequently, if the Democrats really want to see oil prices decrease dramatically they need to pressure their leader to back off, not the speculators. And if they want to do even more than that to help, they ought to try convincing their leader's boss, George Soros, to move Petrobras from Brazil and begin oil production in the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Scanning headlines this morning, I saw one from Politico on Drudge that I couldn't believe: Gloria Gone Wild: Arrest Limbaugh for his speech! I didn't know who it was the "Gloria" referred to, so I clicked it and read the story. Here's what I found out.
Apparently she's an attorney named Gloria Allred and she sent a letter to the Palm Beach County state attorney requesting an investigation into whether Rush should be prosecuted for "calling a law student a 'slut' and 'prostitute' last week"
According to the article, Allred said, "Mr. Limbaugh targeted his attack on a young law student who was simply exercised her free speech and her right to testify before congress on a very important issue to millions of American women and he vilified her. He defamed her and engaged in unwarranted, tasteless and exceptionally damaging attacks on her. He needs to face the consequences of his conduct in every way that is meaningful.”
(PS-I think you should read her first sentence carefully because I think it clearly reflects the dramatically decreasing knowledge level of today's "experts," especially the part where she says: "who was simply exercised her free speech " In that regard, I suggest this lady learn the English language, especially sentence structure and tense, if she intends to keep letting the press quote her because to me she sounds like a major league dunce, likely educated in public schools.)
As for the opinions she stated themselves are concerned, the last time I looked this was still the United States of America where we still exercise free speech. That's mentioned in the Constitution, and provided she knows what that is and also how to read -she can look it up. If not, perhaps she can find someone who can read it to her.
As far as Rush himself is concerned, I think it's likely he appreciates the attention she's drawing for him and the probable boost in his ratings. But whatever the case, that's where the final determination on what he said about the young woman will come out. Because if his ratings do increase, it doesn't really matter what this headline-seeking lawyer thinks, and if they go down, he'll have a learned a lesson from his public. But, no matter what temporarily happens to Rush, I'm pretty sure he'll remain at the top of the heap for a long time to come, and the lady mouthpiece will remain an illiterate meddling wannabe for the rest of her life.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
As expected yesterday, I'm sure the president was quite pleased that an amendment to the highway bill to fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline was defeated. But what surprised even me, who follows the oil supply situation closely, was that he personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose the bill, according to Politico's website. Even so, this time around 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline, and only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved him from an embarrassing defeat
As for me, I understand clearly that the president owes his election win primarily to George Soros and moveon.org, and therefore does everything he can to maintain and support the importing of foreign oil, increasingly from Petrobras in Brazil. But what continues to confuse me is why so many other Dem's go along with the incumbent while watching American citizens suffer financially as foreigners greedily take money out of their pockets, hand over fist.
And while I certainly realize that folks like Schumer, Pelosi and Boxer are nothing more than totally selfish, uncaring political hacks who have some bucks themselves and generally have no interest in anyone else, I wondered about some of the others on the left. And then just yesterday I saw that Henry Waxman voiced an opinion.
Both Waxman and the president said that increasing domestic oil production would do nothing to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. And after wondering what planet these two think average folks live on to try and sell them that kind of total BS, I looked up Waxman's bio. I did that because although I've seen him often enough to know that he comes on like a ferret after a dying sparrow, I actually know little about him personally, and here's what I found out.
As I should have expected, after attending UCLA, attaining a BS in political science in 1961, he got a degree from their law school in 1964. He worked as a lawyer until elected to the California Assembly in 1969 and served three terms, then went on to Congress where, along with Congressman Howard Berman he co-founded the Los Angeles Young Democrats.
According to his own website, Waxman's legislative priorities are "health and environmental issues, including universal health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid coverage, tobacco, AIDS, air and water quality standards, pesticides, nursing home quality standards, women's health research and reproductive rights, the availability and cost of prescription drugs, and the right of communities to know about pollution levels. As an example of Waxman's thoughts regarding tobacco, on April 13, 2010, he requested that Major League Baseball ban smokeless tobacco"
So, as I should have suspected, he's another one of these guys who's never worked in the real world, or likely seen it, a day in his life. He's also highly opinionated about things he knows nothing about from an average American's perspective and represents a district that's so left wing, none of his constituents know anything about it either. And yet, despite his naivete and gullibility to the realities of the nation's economy, his election to office permits him to add his effect to the dampening of the nation's well being continually.
The only good thing about any of this is that if I found these two politico's, the president and Waxman, so unconscionably biased against the good of our nation I have to assume many others will too. And although all the Hollywood types will likely keep Waxman in office, there's a very good chance the general voting public will toss the other one out.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Two items today, both of which have to do with differing points of view. The first is about all the flap about Rush Limbaugh's loss of sponsors because of his remarks said to be disparaging to women.
In that regard, I simply don't understand what's so upsetting to people, because whether everyone acknowledges it or not, the situation for women in the U.S. has significantly changed. From sports at all stages, including the professional level in many, to Chairperson's positions at many Fortune 500 businesses, to politics, government, education, medicine, manufacturing , the theater, music, the arts, even auto and horse racing and just about every other endeavor one can name...women now participate freely at their discretion and are not precluded from competing in any way, so long as they have the abilities and credentials which is the same as it is for men.
Consequently, if they step up to the plate and play in the game, why shouldn't they face the same conditions as men? And the answer to that one, I think, is that they shouldn't get special protection from whatever they might face because they're now equals and not some delicate, petite little flower to be treated with kid gloves. And I'm pretty sure that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Sandra Palin and Oprah are very good and clear illustrations of my point.
So, perhaps Rush's choice of words may not have been the best, but if the lady he supposedly insulted has problems with the heat, she ought to stay of the kitchen and learn to keep her mouth shut in public about her opinions.
As for me, I stopped listening to Rush, among other shows, about five years back because there were more commercials than talk and I got tired of continually turning the sound down or off when they were played. And then one day, I just never turned it on again. But now, if sponsors keep leaving and there's less interruption, I just might tune in again, which means -perhaps the insulted lady was for me a good break.
Item two's about how the media's treating Romney, saying he's still not a winner because the others are still in the race. And while they suggest it shows weakness, as I've stated before I think the extended internal competition helps him. Because as soon as he has the nomination wrapped up, he'll have to direct his efforts at the incumbent president and I believe that with eight months to go, his arguments are subject to becoming boring and might simply burn out. Therefore, the longer the nominating process takes, the better it is for Mitt's chances in the general election.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
