Rick Moran explains.
The parallels with the Clintons in 1992 remain amazing:
- We have people who have a record of corruption (almost by definition in the case of Obama, because it’s not possible to come out of Chicago politics, particularly Democrat politics, without being corrupt). And the corruption involves (among other things) shady real-estate deals.
- The couple both have law degrees.
- The wife is loved by the left, and is problematic with the non-left.
- The media swoons for them, and doesn’t bother to ask any of the local journalists about their local past which, if they had, would have provided a rich vein of ore that would provide themselves and the nation a lot of info about what we were all in for if they were elected.
The difference, and problem (of course) for them is that there is no Ross Perot this year to suck off squishy Republican votes. Neither of the Dems’ candidates have a prayer of winning this year, but I’ll enjoy watching the fratricide, which will just make the landslide all the larger, and perhaps provide coattails for the Congress.
Neither of the Dems’ candidates have a prayer of winning this year
They don’t have a prayer? If that’s really true, then you can more than double your money on Intrade.
The ultimate question will be, if he wins in November, will the good citizens of Illinois be as happy that they’re gone, as the Arkansans were to see the Clintons exit the stage?
will the good citizens of Illinois be as happy that they’re gone
What planet do you live on? In May, 2006, Obama had a 72% home-state approval rating, the highest of any US Senator. Follow this link to return to planet Earth.
Perhaps if the press did their job instead of giving Obama one, that 72% wouldn’t be that high. Of course once Rezko’s trial is over, that homey feeling may drop a lot.
If you bought McCain at the right time, you could have QUADRUPLED your money so as the disclaimer states current quotes are not predictive of future results. Oh and Jim, why insult someone asking a question?
Ilinois has two kinds of politicians: the corrupt Mayor Daley kind, and the Senator Paul Simon kind. The vast majority of Illinois politicians are in the former category, but Senator Obama is in the latter category (and when he was alive, Paul Simon knew it.) You might not have agreed with Simon’s politics, but you can’t criticize his character. The Paul Simon variety of politician even exists in Chicago — witness David Orr ( a former Chicago Alderman who fought the good fight and is currently the Cook County Clerk – an excellent position to fight corruption.) Most readers of this blog will have no interest in Illinois politics, but I wanted to point out that your comment about Chicago is an inaccurate overgeneralization which unfairly slams some decent honest politicans who have bravely stood up against corruption – not easy to do in a cesspool, but quite possible!
If Obama doesn’t reach the presidency this time, I believe the end of his Senate term coincides with a gubernatorial election in Illinois. My guess is that he would easily win. Watch for Gov. Obama to compete with Gov. (Jeb) Bush for the presidency some time down the road!
Perhaps if the press did their job instead of giving Obama one, that 72% wouldn’t be that high.
It’s a free country and a free market and the audience can change the station to Rush Limbaugh any time. Or change the channel to Fox News. Anyone with Internet access can
get to the National Review web site with three keystrokes and one click. You can switch to a competitor in two seconds; you don’t even have to shell out money. Yet you describe a liberal cabal called “the press” that you think manipulates public opinion and opposes capitalism. That just doesn’t make any sense, because the media is a capitalist arena. The press will do whatever sells. If you think that the press is so terrible, you have no choice but to blame the customers, which is to say the American people.
Jim, I think William Randolph Hearst might be receptive to that argument, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense. Just because people can swallow crap doesn’t make it any less crappy. And just because Bill scolds journalists for not doing their “job” doesn’t mean he believes in a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy of Doom (TM). Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, after all.
In May, 2006, Obama had a 72% home-state approval rating, the highest of any US Senator.
Two items Jim.
Number One. That was two years ago. How happy are they now that he’s spent every waking moment running for President and NOT representing them?
Number Two. Clinton was supposed to be well loved by his state when he started running too. But when I worked there, even die hard, yellow dog, Southern liberal Dems were glad he’d moved on. Clinton’s numbers in polls were supposed to be sky high too. I trust the MSM to do an honest poll about like I’d trust rattle snakes to watch the grandkids.
Jim says, “Yet you describe a liberal cabal called “the press” that you think manipulates public opinion and opposes capitalism. That just doesn’t make any sense, because the media is a capitalist arena.”
Okay Jim, Why is the NYTimes about to see their bonds go to junk status and cut 100 newsroom jobs yet not change the propaganda they spew every day? Why are newspapers hemoraging money and readers? Based on your view it’s because people don’t like was they publish. If they are the true capitalists you say they are what are they to do? Right now they’re blaming everyone but themselves. Also, don’t put words in my mouth. “Cabal”? No. Loose confederation of like-minded individuals who think they know more than anyone else? Yes.
While I think McCain can beat either–and will–I think we can all safely assume that Turner Classic Movies will run marathons of “The Manchurian Candidate” (the original and remake) along with CNN reports of how brainwashing is done. So no landslide.
Bill Maron: If you bought McCain at the right time, you could have QUADRUPLED your money
If you think that you can time the market, more power to you.
Math_Mage: Just because people can swallow crap doesn’t make it any less crappy.
That’s true, but it could be their fault for swallowing it. After all, whose fault is it if you eat at McDonald’s when you could have had a good sandwich at home?
I admit that McDonald’s is complicit in the bad judgment of its customers. Likewise, William Randolph Hearst and his modern clone Rupert Murdoch are complicit in the bad judgment of their audience. It’s easy for me to admit this because I am not a devoted libertarian. The libertarian argument is that there would be no bad TV if nobody wanted to watch it.
Steve: Clinton was supposed to be well loved by his state when he started running too.
My advice to you is very simple. You should spend more time developing your own wisdom and less time convincing yourself that most people agree with you. It’s no disgrace to get outvoted sometimes; it may mean that you’re an independent thinker.
Why is the NYTimes about to see their bonds go to junk status and cut 100 newsroom jobs yet not change the propaganda they spew every day?
It certainly isn’t because readership of the New York Times has fallen. Read this source for the real reasons. One reason is that web sites generate less ad revenue than print, because the on-line audience is less captive to the ads. The entire newspaper industry, including the Reagan Youth Press if there is such a paper, has been devastated by the Internet. Yet if anything, the Times is one of the survivors. They have 1332 newsroom employees, which is a record for them and 400 more than any other newspaper. The Times Company is doing badly, but that’s mostly because it owns many other newspapers. nytimes.com is also well ahead of every other on-line newspaper, which is part of the reason that they have so far survived the crunch. Their total readership is way up, even though revenue is down.
No where does that article talk about readership levels or the internet success. So where did you get your info? You are aware that the 49.95 wall the Times had for “premium” internet content came down as it wasn’t working and they acknowledged then revenue for internet services would be lower than expected.
So where did you get your info?
That particular side of it came from other sources, yes. I can’t find all of them at the moment, but for instance see here. This graph compares 5 years of traffic for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News, as a percentage of all Web traffic. While the New York Times only looks like it has held even, and while it has had ups and downs, it has actually maintained at least a half percent (in “reach”) of a rapidly growing Web. Its conservative competitors have not kept up. Only CNN and BBC News are ahead of the New York Times, neither of these are conservative either, and the Times has been catching up to them in the long term.
You are aware that the 49.95 wall the Times had for “premium” internet content came down as it wasn’t working
What they said was that it was working, just not as well as on-line advertising.
they acknowledged then revenue for internet services would be lower than expected.
Of course, no matter how well anyone does, you can always find some expectations somewhere that weren’t met. The Times is certainly doing better than your expectations, at least those that you have stated.
So 10 mil in revenue vs. 65 mil in revenue for the WSJ mean the Times is doing better? That kind of spinning will run your stock price right into the ground…wait, that’s already happened. Oh and the Times Co ad revenue was down 7% for the 4th quarter, the average for the industry.
The Times isn’t meeting anyone