Make It While You Can

If I am not mistaken, yesterday (and today?) was the single biggest drop (nearly 500 points in one day; over 900 points in two) in the stock market in the history of the stock market...the day after the election of a new president. I may also have this wrong: sometimes the stock market has actually increased in value the day after the election of a president.

News outlets are telling us that it all has to do with dire economic news, which seems rather tautological: Investors are selling because the economy is struggling. Such analysis is not only banal but stupid: it is the news of the obvious. But those same outlets won't note that yesterday was also a history-making day for the market; the media don't want you to note the correlation.

Of course, they don't mind peddling all kinds of correlations, particularly those that work to reinforce propaganda.

I wonder how many investors will be playing the stock market for all its worth till the end of the year solely to avoid the promised increases in capital gains and dividends taxes under the next administration. It seems likely, or so I feel, that they've actually been playing this game quite intensely since somewhere around September 15.

Or, perhaps, as a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama told me at lunch this afternoon (I am not making this up), perhaps the shrewdest Democratic investors are manipulating the market solely to make the next administration look every bit like a savior.

Well, if an avid Obama supporter can think such things (this very guy shouted at me in the same café four years ago because he heard I was a "Republican"), then anything seems possible.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Key To Republican Success: One Of History's "Great" Presidents

Why is this woman



NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?

Simple. It is because of this man:



I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to anyone closely associated with it.

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________

What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.

But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:

Why is this man



enjoying his ascendant celebrity?

Simple. It is because of this man:




During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.

Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.

But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.

Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.

What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.

(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)

___________________

Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man



is where he is because of this man



and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.

And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.

"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?

You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.

©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

If This Is "Rigorous Vetting," What Is Bad Vetting?

It is the third sentence that I find amusing, and maybe even bemusing.

In this morning's New York Times lead article on Barack Obama's choice of Sen. Joe Biden for his vice president, I read this curiosity:

"Over the course of two months, as the dynamics of the presidential campaign and world events shifted quickly, Mr. Biden’s stock rose through one of the most rigorous vice-presidential vetting processes that Democrats could recall." [emphasis mine]

I know I probably should not find the Times' sentence amusing, but I do. For it seems to me that it suggests far too much about the health of the Democratic Party leadership in America. If Joe Biden is the result of the toughest vetting process any Democrat can remember, does this not imply that all the other possible choices miserably failed this astringent test? And what does it say when Biden -- a known plagiarist (sorry, but he is) and loose cannon -- makes it through this "rigorous" vetting process? Do Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine fail the "rigorous" vetting process because of even worse sins than plagiarism? Or does "vetting" mean something other than sifting through a nominee's past to determine whether he, or she, is hiding anything that could hurt the ticket? If Biden's plagiarism, and his many volatile and damning statements, do not hurt the ticket, then what would have proven a liability had Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd been chosen as VP? And how does one perform a rigorous vetting process in two short months when, as the Times said, "the dynamics of the presidential race [i.e., Obama was tanking in the polls] and world events shifted quickly"?

And then there is this paragraph from the Times' story:

"On Saturday, as the two men [Obama and Biden] embraced before a crowd in Illinois, the new Democratic partnership made its debut. Yet in a moment that could have showcased Mr. Obama’s decision-making, his top advisers made a concerted effort not to disclose how he made his choice, instead choosing to showcase the life stories of the two men on the ticket and to present Mr. Biden as a forceful new critic of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona." [emphasis mine]

I note that the Saturday moment in Illinois could have been used to show a great number of things. That Mr. Obama chose not to summarize for the world the rigorous vetting process he allegedly used to reach such a monumental decision could have also suggested that he did not want to disclose the process because it would reveal that his decision was weak, or fear-driven and utterly irrational, or crassly opportunistic. That Mr. Biden was indeed chosen suggests to at least this writer that the vetting process could not have been as rigorous as the Times might like to believe. Plus, was it really Barack Obama's "top advisors" who made this decision not to showcase the putative political genius of Mr. Obama? If so, who is the true leader in the bunch? And why would his "top advisors" make a "concerted effort" to conceal Barack Obama's decision-making process? Why the secrecy? What is there to hide? Why not showcase it?

Perhaps this sentence from the Times' story explains more than we know:

"Mr. Obama reached the [Biden] decision about 10 days ago while on a weeklong vacation to Hawaii. That week, Mr. Biden’s strengths in foreign policy were highlighted by the conflict between Russia and Georgia, giving his prospects a further boost."

Rigorous indeed.

I note the Times uses quite a bit of ink on Bill Richardson. The Times tells us that even Richardson's financial records were pored over by the vetting team. Apparently he passed the rigors of vetting quite well; one wonders, however, how a guy like Richardson, who also has legitimate foreign policy experience, falls short in Obama's world, especially when -- without doing any vetting at all! -- the Obama team knew Biden carries some serious baggage.

Somewhere, buried in all this, is some sort of change I can believe in.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

18-1: Man, Am I Glad It's Finally Over

(See? I am a mass of contradictions. I complained yesterday about watching the Super Bowl, and now I am writing about watching the Super Bowl.)

There is a problem with pursuing perfection: it's a vain and futile pursuit. And nearly any psychologist will inform you that perfectionism is a neurosis. Plus, it is a heavy burden to bear.

Good news. I can finally relax now that my hope for perfection has been smashed to the ground by a dominant defense, a composed quarterback, a miracle escape from a sack that had not quite closed, and a miracle one-handed-then-to-helmet-then-to-two-hands catch. Sweet relief! The New York Giants were the better team tonight.

Losing, in all honesty, has never felt so good.

As any football fan knows, a few losses in a season are no big deal. Many teams make it into the playoffs with 10-6 records (others have made it with worse records). But maintaining an undefeated season is wearying, or so it was for this fan. Going undefeated is not something the average fan, or player, or any coach expects or demands. And it becomes not merely an expectation but a annoying distraction. Weeks ago -- and I mean this -- I was ready for the Patriots to just lose, and maybe even lose again. Watching the games became more pain than pleasure. Rather than just expecting one's team to do well, there was this irresistible expectation that they must never lose. And then when the play-offs began, losing felt like it cost too much.

Obviously, they did lose, and they lost at the 'wrong' time.

As an armchair coach, I can only say that the Patriots' decision-making and play tonight seemed rather stunted. Brady needed to roll out of the pocket and not permit himself to play smash-mouth with a pretty sick pass rush. (The last two plays, Brady did roll right, finding time and passing lanes.) The Pats needed to develop their screen game (which had been one of the best in the NFL); they needed to remember that Donté Stallworth is on their team. They needed to finish the sack; they needed to bring down the interception or recover the fumble. They should have punched the Giants with a two-back set more often. And they probably needed to trust the leg of their field goal kicker one particular time, though it would have been a long-shot (which is what big games are about).

The numbers won't matter to the pundits, but the Patriots were not radically outplayed by a better team. They just lost, looking mediocre; worn out, perhaps, from the pressure of being perfect. Who wants to carry that mantle around anyway, other than Mercury Morris? The pass rush of the Giants was the best the Patriots have seen all year, I think; they were certainly outplayed on the line of scrimmage on many downs.

My hat is off to the Giants. I am a former fan of that legendary NY franchise. I think the Manning brothers are class acts; Eli's a great kid. The Giants played with fire in their bellies. I appreciate that.

But I predictably console myself with the simple observation that this year's Super Bowl champs had fewer wins and more losses than the Super Bowl losers. 18-1 is shockingly good, as are the many NFL records (Wes Welker's record-setting performance in tonight's game just one more great feat) the Patriots set. They remain the standard bearer; the NFL has been transformed in many ways by that curmudgeonly coach in the sideline hoodie.

One more thing: tonight's loss puts the end -- I mean THE END -- to the whole Spy-gate absurdity. So glad that sideshow is over.

Overall, trying to be objective, I think the Super Bowl was just OK -- at best. The last few minutes were interesting. But as I said last night, the NFL season is more interesting than its climax. It's perhaps the one case -- what REAL man dare say this?! -- where the courtship is more interesting and fun than the consummation.

EXTRAS

BEST COMMERCIALS: Coke's two ads, the parade balloons battling it out for a bottle of Coca-Cola (quite beautiful, really, so gentle and lyrical -- Go Charlie Brown!), and the bipartisan gem featuring James Carville and Bill Frist. Perfect. (Also, I liked the Toyota commercial with the Big Wheel races, though not for the SUV advertised, but for the fact that I want to race Big Wheels downhill. And the Hyundai Genesis is a sweet looking ride.)

The Budweiser Clydesdales are always a big hit with me; I am a sucker for those animals. Loved the dalmatian-as-trainer saving the career of one out-of-shape horse.

WORST COMMERCIAL: Can't say I liked the Jiminy Cricket-like creature (Pinocchio riff?) getting eaten by the spider; and I liked the baby on-line investor but the regurgitation was one step too far (the clown follow-up was cute, though.) And the corpulent dude clamping jumper cables to his nipples was initially funny, but was just plain crude by the end. (I know, I am a killjoy.)

BEST PROMO: The NFL's promotional about dreaming big dreams. I did not catch the names, but the piece about the two Houston Texans teammates -- one of whom is an oboe player -- was brilliant and sweet.

HALFTIME SHOW: Tom Petty and the HEARTbreakers. Not the best name for a band if you're a Patriots fan. But the little medley was decent enough. I am no Petty fan, so I must say that it is clear he's STILL running down a dream, and I am a bit weary of it. My guess is he hasn't played to such a large audience in a long, long time. I'll give the entertainment a 7.5.

NATIONAL ANTHEM: Wow. Stunning, I thought.

END OF GAME HANDSHAKE: Stay on the field, Bill. If only for one more second. (Dear NFL: Give him a 10-yard penalty to be assessed in the first game of next season). Uncool, sir.

PREDICTION: Patriots are in 2 of the next 5 Super Bowls, winning at least one. New York Giants struggle again to get into the play-offs next year; they might not even make the play-offs. They won't make it past the first round if they do.

(Gosh, I really AM an idiot.)

Peace, and good night.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.