Who's owned by Big Business? 

You hear a lot - from Barack Obama. in particular - about the way he will protect us from "special interests." 

But campaigns are paid for by those special interests - which include many traditional big contributors to the Democratic Party such as

- trial lawyers (who raised more money for John Edwards' campaign than all of the surviving candidates COMBINED, and which were among both Obama and Clinton's top ten contributors (according to opensources.org, who also provided the figures below)

- investment banks (six of the top contributors, including the top five, to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns were investment banks who spend a lot of effort making the way smooth for big companies in the Persian Gulf and China, really in many countries where influence could buy a lot of slack on trade and human rights issues, not to mention the studied indifference of both parties to the financiers of global terrorism)

- unions (it's difficult to see why people in unions continue to support the Democratic Party, as committed as Democratic Members of Congress have been to opening the borders and admitting a surge of cheap illegal labor into the country - making life more difficult for working people. 

Maybe if more unions were less corrupt, this would change, but Obama has shown that he can be gotten to - he has publicly promised that he would "deliver" to the Teamsters, whose national organization is chafing under a consent order which places their operations under intense judicial scrutiny.

So Joe Sixpack is paying a percentage of his wages to organizations who support politicians committed to crapping up his life - bringing competition for his job in, contrary to Federal law.  Why?)

- abortionists (Obama is out to the left of NARAL, the abortionists' biggest lobby, on abortion law.  As a state senator, Obama voted against a law that would require Illinois doctors to not kill babies who survived abortions - a law NARAL told the Illinois State Senate they could live with. 

Just knock'em in the head, huh, BO?)

It adds up pretty quickly, and we have a great indicator of who's the most bought-off by these special interests: dollars.

The figures are (from opensecrets.com):

Candidate				Total Raised	Total Spent	Cash on Hand	Debts
Obama, Barack				$265,439,277	$218,884,220	$46,555,057	$2,037,801
Clinton, Hillary				$214,883,437	$185,216,984	$29,666,453	$19,480,893

McCain, John

$96,654,783

$72,666,309

$23,988,473

$968,301

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 8:28 PM MDT

Updated: Friday, 4 July 2008 10:08 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Numbers collected by opensecrets.org 

Quoted from "ObamaExposed," Human Events magazine (with my notes in parentheses) 

1. GOLDMAN SACHS — TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $834,124
Hillary Clinton: $413,361
Barack Obama: $421,763

(investment bankers, http://www2.goldmansachs.com/

click on that URL, by the way, and you'll see that these people are heavily invested in what they refer to as BRICs - businesses in Brazil, Russia, India and China. 

Two of those countries have ICBMs pointed at us, while another - Brazil - just elected a hardline leftist as president who is helping finance narcoterrorism in the Tri-Border area of South America. 

India is the only country they're in that doesn't pose a national security threat to us.)

2. CITIGROUP, INC. — TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $572,473
Hillary Clinton: $350,895
Barack Obama: $221,578

(bank/investment house, http://www.citigroup.com

they are heavily invested in Japan - just merged with Nikko bank)

3. MORGAN STANLEY —
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $517,896
Hillary Clinton: $362,700
Barack Obama: $155,196

(investment bankers, http://www.morganstanley.com/

According to the Web site located at the URL above, Morgan Stanley is heavily invested in China and "EMEA" - Europe, Middle East and Africa. 

These regions probably appreciate the Clintons' ineffectual military policies, and probably look to Obama to reinstate them.  In general, the Democratic  party's been pretty good to "EMEA" and China. 

We already know the windfall of political influence China's contributions to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign reaped.  When were the Clintons ever going to get around to protecting America?  They had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden, but Bill couldn't be bothered to walk down from the VIP pavilion at a golf tournament to authorize the hit.

As crooked as Osama already appears to be, we can't seriously expect better from him than from the Clintons.) 

4. LEHMAN BROTHERS —
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $492,500
Hillary Clinton: $241,870
Barack Obama: $250,630

(investment bankers, http://www.lehman.com/) 

5. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. —
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $458,728
Hillary Clinton: $214,880
Barack Obama: $243,848

(investment bankers, have brokered deals for China Aluminum to buy 12% of Rio Tinto, the global mining conglomerate; the sale of GE Plastics to Saudi Basic Industries Corp, have provided consulting services to major bank mergers in the Persian Gulf Emirates and huge Chinese industrial firms.

See the pattern here?   It would be much, much easier for these guys to do business if they could demonstrate to the Arabs and the Chinese that they got someone in the White House who wouldn't hold their feet to the fire on financing of global terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda, and predatory business practices that hurt Americans.) 

6. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC. —
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $455,853
Hillary Clinton: $210,010
Barack Obama: $245,843

(national chain of theaters.  http://www.nationalamusements.com/)

7. SKADDEN, ARPS ET AL —
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $364,216
Hillary Clinton: $167,796
Barack Obama: $196,420

(New York's largest law firm - 2,000 attorneys, http://www.skadden.com/)

8. KIRKLAND & ELLIS — TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $314,414
Hillary Clinton: $179,676
Barack Obama: $134,738

(another huge law firm, http://www.kirkland.com/)

9. TIME WARNER — TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $300,360
Hillary Clinton: $144,977
Barack Obama: $155,383

(media conglomerate, http://www.timewarner.com/

Time, CNN, Turner, Big Cable - I'm surprised these guys aren't CHARGING Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for public relations work, really.)

10. MERRILL LYNCH — TOTAL CONTRIBUTED: $269,442
Hillary Clinton: $165,042
Barack Obama: $104,400

(another big, big investment house. http://www.ml.com)

You know, it's amazing how these Democratic candidates like to hammer and hammer on the Republicans about "special interests" when they're in the pockets of Big Law, Big Banks, and Big Investors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They're hypocrites, plain and simple.  

Next time you pull up to the gas pump and shell out four bucks a gallon, thank the investment bankers who own the Democratic Party for helping make it happen - by greasing the wheels for OPEC countries to own more and more of America.  The Clintons had eight years to do something about our dependence on oil, so they and George W. Bush deserve equal blame on this one.  

Next time your co-pays go up at the pharmacy and the hospital - or you have to pay the whole bill because you can't afford health insurance - thank big law firms like Skadden, Arps and Kirkland, Ellis, and the trial lawyers of America in general, who contribute to the Democrats over ten to one compared to their contributions to other political parties. 

Big Law's often frivolous lawsuits against the health and pharmaceutical industries are the single largest factor in the rising cost of health care - and if the Democrats do push through socialized medical care, you can bet it'll be a bonanza for bureaucrats and Big Law and a disaster for everyone else.

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 7:20 PM MDT

Updated: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 9:27 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

I didn't think there would be much to the allegations that Barack Obama has taken a LOT of money and/or expensive favors in shady circumstances.

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, though.

This is a link to a London Times online story about Obama accepting assistance from one of Britain's richest men, an Iraqi expatriate, to purchase a mansion and help with his fundraiser...

Quoting from the article, which also gets into the deal with Mr. and Mrs. Rezko for financing for the Obamas' South Side Chicago mansion (of course, there's no obligation to do favors for millions of dollars of campaign money, is there?   Just ask Hillary Clinton... )

"A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."

Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times."

_____ 

This is better than the Korean millionaire Tongsun Park giving Mrs. Edwin Edwards (his ex-wife, now) $50,000 for a living room table in the Louisiana governor's mansion - some deal or other having to do with rice exports.

But what's the quid pro quo for an underpaid office worker (married to a man under indictment for corruption) to buy a $625,000 piece of land to sell to the Obamas , or an Iraqi businessman to float these people a $3.5 million dollar home loan - through an offshore company, no less?

What, exactly, would a guy under indictment for corruption and a foreigner already convicted of corruption want a US Senator - or God forbid, a President - to do for him?  

The mind boggles.

_____

If you don't trust the British press, how about the Chicago Sun-Times?

"Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case

Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko"

(blogger note - Did Katie Couric share this with you yet?  Chris Matthews sling a hardball about it on his Sunday morning show?  I thought not.) 

For the first time, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating." 

Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama’s name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn’t need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party’s nomination for president."

(Blogger note: this is old news.  Why on Earth haven't the national news media picked up on it?  The British know about it.  They seem to know more than even the Sun-Times does about the foreign campaign contributions to the Obama campaign.

What was that about "no special interests?"  Obama, you lying sack of.... )

"Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law."

(Blogger note: This sort of thing has gotten people in deep trouble - like entrepreneur Michael Zinn, whose story was told in the documentary "Mad Dog Prosecutors" - he was accused of this very infraction and spent a lot of time undergoing administrative abuse in the Federal prison system - all because some of his business rivals said he MIGHT have reimbursed some of his employees for making donations to a Congressman whose campaign he supported.  They proved NOTHING, but Zinn remained in jail.) 

"A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald declined to comment.

Obama — a state senator when he got the contributions in 2004 — has moved to distance himself from Rezko since his longtime friend and supporter was indicted in October 2006. After news reports that Obama had engaged in a real estate transaction with Rezko’s wife at a time Tony Rezko was known to be under investigation, the senator called the episode “boneheaded” and “a mistake.”

"Obama campaign aides said Friday he was unaware Rezko was behind the contributions cited in last month’s court filing or that the document referred to the senator.

“We have no way of knowing he is the politician named here,” spokesman Bill Burton said, “but we returned this money months ago for other reasons.”

 (Right.  Sure.)

"Rezko is one of Obama’s earliest political patrons. Long known as a prolific fund-raiser, the Syrian-born businessman helped raise money for Obama’s political campaigns beginning in 1995, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate.

In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama’s “best estimate” seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a June 27, 2003, cocktail party in Rezko’s Wilmette mansion, picking up the tab for the lavish event. Obama’s campaign staff has said it has no records to show who attended that party, or how much it cost.

Obama’s relationship with Rezko dates to 1990, when Obama, then a Harvard law student, interviewed for a job with Rezko’s development company, Rezmar Corp. Obama turned down the job, instead going to work for a small Chicago law firm — Davis Miner Barnhill. That firm did work on more than a dozen low-income housing projects Rezmar rehabbed with government funds.

Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko’s company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he’d done.

Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price."

(Blogger note: This confirms the London Times's account of that particular activity.)

"Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else,” Obama said, “to believe that he had done me a favor.”"

(Blogger note: why does the press just sit there and nod when Obama's flacks hand out crap like this?  After all the flak the White House took over Scooter Libby POSSIBLY not being accurate about something he said under oath? 

Inconsistency here, folks... no, let's call it what it is - partisan media bias.)

It would be better, in my opinion, if Obama's campaign had simply returned the money to the donors - or declined it in the first place.  That way, there's NO question of a quid pro quo.

It also would be a lot closer to what Obama pledges he WILL do.  All we can really evaluate is what he HAS done.

Obama's campaign has historically allowed donors to believe that they have some influence with the Senator instead of rebuffing them outright.  It seems as though the Obama campaign lacks the courage to live up to their rhetoric on campaign finance.  No audacity with the donors, eh?

Historically, the Democrats have been loud in demanding campaign reform only to ignore the resulting laws when it is convenient (and local party officials here in Denver have said outright that they're still scrambling to come up with the money for this year's Democratic National Convention in Denver, so I think even money that smells like ten-day old fish entrails will be welcome right around now to finance the big party).

______

It's also interesting to note that a Vice Chairman at Perseus, LLC (which also employs Bush administration critic Richard Holbrooke), James A. Johnson, is active in the Obama campaign and in charge of selection of the vice-presidential candidate.

Going over to the Perseus LLC Web site, we find that it is an investment fund, and that George Soros is an investment partner of theirs.  Perseus Soros Partners LLC invests heavily in pharmaceutical companies. 

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1250191.htm

George Soros pumped incredible amounts of soft money into the coffers of the Democratic Party during the 2004 elections.  Now he's trying to buy himself another Democratic President.  And that's the only name you can give to the transaction. 

Wealthy foreigner dumps tons of money into a political campaign...  why?   Based on what the Chinese got from the Clintons for their generous support - neutron bomb plans, most favored nation trading status, lots of slack on their human rights record, the answer is obviously political influence, and plenty of it. 

And Barack Obama just doesn't seem able to say "no" to contributors.  If he were a Republican, the hue and cry for his impeachment from the Senate would be in progress now. 

By the standards the "mainstream" press and critics of the Republican Party apply to conservative politicians, Obama would be regarded as a moral leper.  He takes money from Chicago slum lords, just plain crooks and people whose business practices don't bear too close an examination.  

In fact, by the standards applied to a recent House majority whip (the guy who used to spray for bugs for a living in Dallas - as opposed to the guy in Obama's campaign team who lets slum apartments swarm with cockroaches), Obama should be writing his resignation speech from the US Senate right now.

How can reasonably intelligent people idolize a man who lets a slum lord run his political campaigns and has had a lifelong relationship with this guy? (The obvious answer is that they may not be as swift as the press is telling them they are.... )

Some of the same people who probably voted for Obama into office went without heat in a Chicago winter (worse than Denver, I can testify) while the guy who owned their apartments threw lavish parties to raise campaign funds for the guy they voted for - why wasn't Obama in this guy's face about people freezing in their apartments?  How compassionate IS he, when it comes down to real decisions?  (Another canape, Senator?)

Obama has worked hand in glove with someone who oppresses the poor of Chicago for years while prosing around about his celestial vision and "the audacity of hope."

All that you see once you peel away the crap is the audacity of Obama.

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 11:27 PM MDT

Updated: Monday, 16 June 2008 2:14 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

Barack Obama, the man who pledges to shield us from all those special interests, has delegated the task of helping pick his vice-presidential nominee to James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC.”

Going over to the Perseus LLC Web site, we find that it is an investment fund, and that George Soros is an investment partner of theirs.  Perseus Soros Partners LLC invests heavily in pharmaceutical companies. 

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1250191.htm

For the short of memory, George Soros pumped incredible amounts of soft money into the Kerry campaign in 2004.  

Now he's trying to buy himself another Democratic President.  And that's the only name you can give to the transaction. 

Wealthy foreigner dumps several personal fortunes into a Presidential campaign...  why?   Altruism?   Personal quirk?  (time clock is ticking...   )

BUZZZZZ.....  The answer is (based on what the Chinese got from the Clintons for their generous support - neutron bomb plans, most favored nation trading status, lots of slack on their human rights record.... )

POLITICAL INFLUENCE! 

Let's all look and see what sort of help George Soros is giving Barack Obama!    

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 5:57 PM MDT

Updated: Saturday, 7 June 2008 7:48 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

"Their threats are terrible enough, but we could bear

All that; it is their promises that bring despair."

"Lines During a General Election." C.S. Lewis

 _____

Something to think about when fumble-fingered dolts all compete to promise us salvation in our time; universal medical care without a bill; prosperity without work; security without armed force to guarantee the peace.

Liars, most of them. 

There is something about politics that pollutes the soul and hates honesty.

The most wretched people on earth are those so completely given over to the political impulse that every breath is a political transaction, every word a promise destined never to be kept, every word to or about a loved one a betrayal. 

And yet these are precisely the people who crave constant and universal adulation.  To these people, no family gathering can be anything but a protracted tribute to worthless, manipulative sociopaths whose consciences constantly nag at them about a life of slander, back-stabbing and duplicity.

Even the wartime deaths of grandchildren who they slandered and harassed endlessly by telephone during life are nothing but opportunities for people like this to bathe in undeserved sympathy (AFTER they scream obscenities at the wife and parents of the bereaved over the telephone for three days before the funeral services to demand publicity for "memorials" intended mainly as more tributes to these same folks, one of whom was screaming and cursing a man who had just lost his son for not doing their publicity for them).

Annunziata Catholic Church, I'd appreciate it if you took your plaque off of my son's memorial.   When he was alive, he wasn't really a part of your parish life, from what he told me. 

There's a perfectly good memorial to him in Noblesville, Indiana, where people knew and loved him.  The sort of memorial that counts.  I don't blame you - you were used to turn a dignified memorial service to a brave man into a circus, one more chance for two of your parishioners to bask in what they imagine is admiration; one day they'll recognize that it was only forbearance and pity.

"Better a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith." - Proverbs 15:17

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 9:07 AM MDT

Updated: Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:43 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For those of us who are really, really PO'd at having to put Bedouin peasants through medical school on Mars every time we fill our gas tanks, some good, good news (maybe - I'll believe it when I see the "recycled computer gas" pump at my local convenience store):

Quoted from the Register Hardware UK Web site

 

http://tinyurl.com/6zyamf

 

by Austin Modine

"13th May 2008 19:59 GMT

Whether through a force of expanding environmental activism or just compliance with government edicts, the IT sector is in a pinch over how to safely recycle defunct computers and equipment...

(to give you some perspective on exactly how much pain in the wallet this can involve, here in Denver recycling an office computer can run you a cool $20 unless you can convince Goodwill, DAV or some other thrift store charity to pick it up.  A 20" CRT monitor or an old traditional color TV will cost you about up to $40 to drop off at the Denver city dump.) 

...But a team of scientists from Romania and Turkey say they've found a simple and effective method to turn printed circuit boards from discarded IT kit into material suitable as fuel or for industrial use.

The researchers note that the plastic portion of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is particularly tricky to recycle because it contains additives, heavy metals, and extremely toxic flame retardants. (You don't want too much polybrominated diphenyl ethers in your diet if you cherish your liver and brain.) 

In their paper "Feedstock Recycling from the Printed Circuit Boards of Used Computers," the scientists describe using a process of heat and chemical decomposition to destroy or remove almost all of the hazardous toxic compounds. A copy of the paper can be found here. (PDF warning.)

(In other words, downloading this paper might tie your Internet connection up longer than you or the people you live with might like; it's also apt to fill up your hard drive, because PDF files are BIG - typically over a megabyte.  Just giving you a heads-up.) 

The process isn't exactly light reading — but when it's done, what's left of the printed circuit board is pyrolysis oil (or bio-oil), which can be refined in a similar fashion as crude petroleum for fuel or can be used by industries to make other useful chemicals.

Indeed now more than ever, is there anything adding more RAM can't do?"

Yes, there is - the process doesn't pay for itself, smart-ass. 

The downside here is the same problem we have now - we give Waste Management Inc (or whoever) free labor in separating paper from cardboard from plastic from aluminum from steel cans;  some places, we pay extra for the privilege; and THEY get to burn the burnables and generate power or process steam to help run their plant.

And as the community of people who are running their diesel-powered cars on other folks' rancid fryer fat are finding out, this smelly crap is now called "waste vegetable oil" and runs about a buck a gallon, IF you can find a connection.  

There's already a Nigerian Email scam out there offering suck, er, recyclers every sort of used liquid carbohydrate at really good prices.  All you have to do is send them lots of money in advance (plus shipping, handling and customs duties) and sit around waiting for the truck full of 55-gallon drums of flammable gunk to arrive at your house.

So I'm not holding my breath for this to come to a filling station near you or me any time soon.   But word of anything that has a remote chance of spoiling any of the Middle East's whole days deserves to be shared.

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 2:20 PM MDT

Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 4:20 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

"If you've got somebody in the White House, someone you know and you have history with, you're going to have results...  "

Barack Obama, speaking to the Teamsters.

Barack Obama has all but promised the Teamsters that he'll lift the close Federal oversight over their operations that has (over a number of years) lifted organized crime's heavy hand of control over the union's finances and operations.

So much for "I'm not about the old politics."  Obama has just demonstrated that he's nothing BUT the "old politics" - and now, he's even chasing the old clients.  I mean, who was the last Presidential contender to make heavy way by dealing with the Teamsters?

Richard Milhous Nixon.

No, Obama's not about the old politics.  He's about the REALLY old politics - open corruption.

Of course, the self-acclaimed "mainstream press" had to make sure that their coverage was even-handed to the extend that Hillary Clinton had to also be implicated in Obama's "footsy with the Teamsters" strategy. 

This has led to a little unintentional self-parody: 

Want to see the mainstream media take on this?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/category/1208.aspx

"From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, we clipped this Wall Street Journal piece, which asserted that "Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption." We even asked this question: Quid pro quo?

However, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor tells First Read that Obama told the Teamsters his position on ending the government's oversight of the union back in the summer of 2007 -- but the Teamsters didn't endorse Obama until February 20.

(My note: Oh, the Teamsters waited eight months before endorsing Obama.  That makes it all right.  

Boy, were we ever rushing to a conclusion.  Everybody knows that crooked political deals have a strict 60-day time limit. 

Otherwise, people might think that both politicians and crooked union bosses have memories that go back eight months.)

Vietor also passes along a 2004 clip from Crain's Chicago Business, which suggests that Obama favored lifting the government's oversight of the Teamsters back then.

(It's time to hang our heads in shame, people.  We've been completely unfair to Barack Obama - obviously, if Obama had opposed the Federal consent decree imposing independent supervision over the Teamsters right when it went into effect, he'd be completely above suspicion now... 

Seriously, though - is the Obama campaign really asking us to accept that because eight months elapsed between Obama's promise that the Teamsters would "get results" if he were elected President, that there was no issue of a quid pro quo between them?  When, as we'll find out below, he wasn't the only candidate in that particular bidding war?) 

Finally, per Politico's Ben Smith, it seems Clinton also believes that the oversight has run its course. Here's what she said in March: "I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta -- you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on."

So what does this mean?

That Hillary Clinton's capable of cutting dirty deals with the Teamster leadership, too?  Big surprise.

Also, that it may have taken the Teamsters eight months or more to make up their mind which of the two Democratic front-runners in the 2008 race to support? Would that even be newsworthy?

___ 

Unexplored by Big Press, or even by FoxNews (which arguably, judging from the Nielsen ratings, is even Bigger Press) as far as I can tell, is whether or not John McCain was guilty of the same accommodation with the Teamsters' front office.

Apparently the impulse to be even-handed in coverage of this story weakened and died when it came to what could only be a highly unfavorable comparison between John McCain and both Democratic candidates on the issue of pandering to corrupt union officials.

They'd have to admit that Obama was more mired in "old politics" than John McCain, and more apt to deal with crooks in order to get into the White House. 

Really big surprise. 

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 5:03 PM MDT

Updated: Monday, 5 May 2008 9:06 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

Ever wonder how to make a real difference in the war against terror for less than the price of a decent shotgun?  Wonder no more, mon frère - you can get an E-85 conversion kit for less than $370 for YOUR car!

E-85, for those who don't know, is a motor fuel made from 85 percent ethanol (grain alcohol, made from the fermentation of corn and other grains) and 15 percent gasoline. 

With the proper modifications (in cars built in the past 20 years, we're talking about changes to the fuel-injection computer and some of the hardware) a car can be modified to be "flex-fuel" capable - running either on regular gasoline or E-85 (which is up to a dollar a gallon cheaper than regular gas).  American car manufacturers have been selling "flex-fuel" cars for a while now. 

The news you can use, that the big media aren't talking about very loud, it that you can convert your existing car to flex-fuel operation for a few hundred dollars.  Do the math yourself - if you use a hundred gallons a month and the conversion kit costs four hundred dollars, payback comes at four months.  After that, you save a hundred dollars a month.

An outfit here in metropolitan Denver makes and sells these EPA-certified devices.  That's right - the US Environmental Protection Agency has checked these conversion kits out and found that not only do they work, they won't ruin your car.  You don't have to buy a whole new car to use E-85 fuel!

Check out the story at this link: 

 http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Page?template=Injectortypesearch

The great news about these kits is that you don't have to own a new car to use them.  These units will work with cars built as long ago as 1990.   Great news for my wife and me, we'd be VERY happy to retro-fit our 1991 Subaru to burn E-85, which is almost a buck cheaper than the cheapest regular gas here in metro Denver!   Even better news for a friend of ours who bought a hybrid gas/electric car not long ago and would like to run E-85 in it... her savings in fuel would be astronomical (even with the slight decrease in miles per gallon due to the lower energy content of E-85, she'd be cutting her fuel bill by a third).

But what about the long list of objections the self-described "mainstream press" (which, of course, takes billions in advertising fees from Big Oil) nurses along against E-85?

There's an equally long list of facts that shoot these myths and exaggerations down.   The folks who make these conversion kits have compiled a list of them on their Web site:

http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Page?template=Myths

As this entry gets pushed down my blog, you'll still be able to access the Web page on the links bar at the right of this page.   My way of helping the country break free of its current addiction to foreign oil.

So far, flex-fuel has taken the place of five BILLION dollars' worth of foreign oil - and that's mainly due to the relatively tiny fleet of new production flex-fuel cars on the roads up to the present.  

If EVERYONE who wanted to (or has to) hang on to their existing car or truck installed one of these kits:

- we'd all be better off financially to the tune of how much cheaper ethanol is than gasoline (and THAT'S improving constantly as corn refineries manage to sell both ethanol AND starches, sugars and animal feed from the same crop of corn);

- the additional billions of dollars which go to the Middle East would stay here in the hands of farmers and the people who sell things to farmers here in America (new factories for John Deere, anyone?)

 - and the people who give Osama bin Laden walking-around money would have to take care of their own urgent financial problems.  (EVIL, EVIL GRIN).

Take some time to learn the truth about the degree to which ethanol can be made at the same time and from the same corn as corn sugars and starches for the food industry and animal feed for our cattlemen. 

Then decide whether or not to invest in your own future and that of your country. 

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 8:38 AM MDT

Updated: Monday, 5 May 2008 7:45 PM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

As I write this, I am watching that wacky old cowboy Don Imus on RFD-TV, Channel 231 on Dish satellite TV.  It’s good to see him back on the air.

You might recall that Imus was fired with considerable fanfare and to-do from his nationally-syndicated radio show for referring to members of a collegiate women’s basketball team as “nappy ‘ho’s,” a term he might been forgiven for thinking was unexceptional for its prevalence  and that of similar terms among college athletes and other people besides Don Imus.  But Imus blundered into the crime of thinking that he could use words which everyone on campus uses – and thereby hung a hapless old white guy from a rhetorical noose of much ado about damn little. 

Imus was a man about it, though; he apologized to the ladies concerned sincerely and profusely, to just about everyone to whom he could conceivably owe an apology and to several folks to whom he didn’t even owe an apology.  And Imus still lost his job as a radio host while Howard Stern makes a wonderful living on satellite radio interviewing assorted people who you’d lock your car doors if you saw them heading toward you at a busy intersection.  Stern's conversational style, if you've missed his show, resembles nothing so much as an acute episode of Tourette's Syndrome. 

Mr. Imus has another radio show now, and I’m watching him produce it in his studio from the “RFD-TV” satellite TV channel (RFD-TV has carved out a warm place in my heart for their coverage of vintage railroad train lines such as the Ohio Central on their “Trains and Locomotives” show).  

He also has an entertaining little teletype-like series of text news highlights running across the bottom of his show’s screen (one of his news items: “Bill and Hillary Clinton reportedly make ‘substantial’ donation to Chicago church where Jeremiah Wright was pastor. Campaign says Clintons feel sense of obligation and gratitude…  ” was the least they could do.”).

You have to admire Imus’s sense of humor, even if he manages to wedge one of his size twelve cowboy boots in his mouth every now and then.  I’d rather, though, listen to a fellow who comes out and says what’s on his mind without giving you a pressurized political spiel than, say, to Brian Williams or Chris Matthews. 

_____

Right now, Imus has got Kinky Friedman (the state of Texas’ answer to Will Rogers) on the phone line, who has just described the relationship between Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama as “another example of black-on-black crime.”

More from Kinky Friedman… “Looking at the vote here in El Paso County, we’re isolated geographically, pretty pure politically… El Paso County is sending over 120 delegates to the Democratic national convention, and almost all of them are voting for Hillary Clinton… I think there’s just one Hispanic delegate left voting for Obama, and that’s Bill Richardson… “ 

I think that this is a fair assessment of the situation here in Denver – the people who actually are citizens here in the US who are of Hispanic heritage seem to be Clinton loyalists – Obama’s appeal seems restricted to the far left, the star-struck devotees of the trendy and the politically glamorous, and his fellow African-Americans.  Nothing wrong about that as such – although if former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards were able to overcome the restriction against convicted felons running for the Presidency, I still wouldn’t vote for him despite the fact we’re both Cajuns.  Ethnic loyalty only gets you so far, and Mr. Edwards pardoned a convicted murderer from Angola State Prison who went on to shoot a cousin and childhood friend of mine in cold blood during a robbery of a restaurant.

Friedman and Imus then rehashed the wonderful study in contrasts between the press’ treatment of Imus and Wright’s respective verbal missteps – Imus raised something like three hundred million dollars for his ranch for sick children on his radio show, no one disputes this, which is some impressive context – and it was totally disregarded by the politically-correct lynch mob of the press and the political left.  Yet Barack Obama (who was in the forefront of those calling for Don Imus’ professional ruin over a single half-witted joke) demanded that Wright’s foul-mouthed, treasonous tirades be excused in the context of his supposed good works – until Wright shamelessly repeated all of his bigotry and his whack-o conspiracy theories about AIDS and crack before the NAACP and the National Press Club.

After a brief pause, Friedman sighed.  “We’ve come a long, long way from Martin Luther King, haven’t we?  Now we’ve come to Rev. Wright, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson.  I mean, Martin Luther King was a man of true compassion, true courage, he was a true Christian, who never would give in to hatred, and this is where we’ve gotten ourselves…  that’s a long journey, and it’s twenty years of it were shared by Obama and Rev. Wright.”

______

Obama is right on one thing – perspective IS important.  Context IS important.

One careless remark – what Don Imus himself agrees was a stupid, regrettable attempt at a joke, for which he has apologized time and time again - led to his losing his job after a hue and cry orchestrated by some of the biggest phonies on the planet Earth, not a few of whom work in politics, the media and political activism.

When will the Reverend Wright apologize for all of the things HE has said?  When will he take back the lies he has uttered about our country?   When will he back away from his racism and his outrageous comments about the United States of America, and his ridiculous charges that the government is somehow responsible for the drug trade or the spread of infectious diseases among drug users and the poor?

Will Jeremiah Wright continue to live here in the United States as a pathetic joke to everyone around him but the very worst bigots and head cases who share his delusions, or will he move to  another country which he might like better?  If this foul-mouthed lunatic had the slightest clue about propriety and dignity, and what it means to contribute to a free nation, he’d slink away from America in shame. 

But who else would have him?   Iran?  Maybe Venezuela or Cuba?

Posted by V.P. Frickey at 8:24 AM MDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink