On July 2, 2008, Ingrid Betancourt, a Colombian and French politican who ran for President in Colombia in 2002, was rescued by Colombian security forces along with 3 Americans and 11 Colombian policemen and soldiers. About 6 years ago, Betancourt was kidnapped by members of FARC while campaigning in the demilitarized zone of San Vicente del Caguan where there was heavy infighting amongst civilians and FARC guerillas.

FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or in Spanish translates to Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, was established in the 1960’s as a guerilla organizaiton founded on Marxist and Leninist ideologies as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. While its initial role was that of a guerilla organization - the use of unconventional mobile tactics such as ambushes and raids against a larger, less mobile formal army - it tapped the cocaine drug trade in the 1980’s to provide needed cash inflows. FARC is considered to be the largest guerilla group in the Americas. Their hiding place is in the southeastern jungles and in the flat lands abutting the Andean Mountains.

The reason I bring up Betancourt is because her situation reminds me of the time I was living and working in Bogota in the late 1980’s. I lived in Bogota in 1988-89 when the guerillas shared turf with the drug cartel and the Colombian government. My experience with FARC was mainly at a distance. You were reminded to take different routes to work each morning and to travel in groups. But, one afternoon, glancing out my hotel room window down to the road in front, I witnessed a perfect ambush of a government official. The main limo transporting the official was 3rd and last in line behind 2 limos occupied by support personnel (so I’m guessing). Suddenly adn quickly, a car emerged from a road on the right, blitzed through the traffic light and crashed between the 2nd and 3rd limo thereby separating the 3rd car, with the official, from his support crew. A support car for the guerillas followed in back of the 3rd car and trapped the officials inside - just like Sonny Corleone in The Godfather. They took the official out of the car, placed him in the car and sped off. The interesting followup is that no media outlets carried the story, not newspapers, radio or TV. I guess I understand it, in part. Government officials could not look as if they were losing the battle against either the guerillas or the drug cartel and they sure didn’t need mass panic to set in. Unrest could have ensued as well as an economic collapse.

I was in Bogota to set up an oil business for a Boston capitalist that knew the father of George H. W. Bush at Zapata Oil. Ed was am unhappy sort, a bit greedy and wanted an overnight method of making more millions so he decided to invest in oil drilling in Bogota. It was costly to drill for oil but if you had a good geologist then risks of spending $1 million per drilled hole were mitigated.

Ed was a bit rough around the edges and forceful in his demeanor. He didn’t like to be told what to do either by his family, friends or business acquantances. So, you can imagine his dismay when he found out that he had to negotiate specific terms with the Colombian government instead of just paying them a stiff fee to go in an plunder to his heart’s delight. He had to agree to drilling rights; he had to cede environmental and infrastructure concessions (roads, highways, etc.) to the government and had to employ only native Colombians on his oil rigs. Ed would fly into Bogota on his private plane to visit the company during a time when it was common for FARC guerillas to kidnap Americans. Arriving as publicly as he did would only tip them off to other Americans in Bogota doing his bidding. The guerillas needed money to support their efforts and the quickest way to obtain it, other than selling cocaine I suppose, was to hold Americans for ransom and demand millions of dollars from the corporations or interests they represented.

So, here I was in the beautiful country of Colombia with no real rules - speaking Spanish helped but it would only make it easier to get along with the guerillas - backed by a man in Boston who didn’t care that much about anything other than money. Seeing him fly in and out of Bogota in his own private jet, getting excited only by the whiff of money, and holding the Colombian government in contempt for making demands on him for drilling in their country made me wonder if he would ever pay a ransom on my behalf if I were kidnapped by the guerillas. My quick answer was “no!”. And even if he did pay the ransom, FARC would have wanted more. FARC does not let go of bargaining chips that easily and Ingrid Betancourt was and is testament to that.

Bienvenido, Ingrid Betancourt.

[Read more →]

Oh Where, Oh Where Will Her Delegates Go?

In Washington on Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and officially endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. (The campaign suspension allows her to keep her delegates and continue to receive donations to pay down her debt.) It was a complete endorsement. She didn’t hold anything back and urged her supporters to switch to Obama for the good of the Party and the country. Obama didn’t know just how complete an endorsement he would get and one guess is that he is happy and content at the way in which she went about it.

The problem is that many of her supporters see right through Clinton and know that she isn’t thrilled to be endorsing Obama and is still rather miffed at the way in which she (and her husband) were treated by the Democratic National Committee a couple of weeks ago when it decided to count but then halve primary delegate votes from Florida and Michigan. She was counting on those delegates to persuade more super delegates to vote her way and, at the very least, to create momentum for a showdown in Denver.

Although Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by amassing more than the needed 2,118 delegates, she still wields power and influence with her 1,919 delegates. What hasn’t been expected until recently, however, is the power her constituency holds over the election chances of Barack Obama.

So, how will Hillary Clinton’s constituency vote in the November Presidential General Election?

CNN polls report that about 25% of her supporters will not vote at all in November if Clinton is not on the Democratic Presidential ticket. About another 20% or so say they will vote, but not for the Democrats. Instead, they will cast their votes for John McCain, the Republican nominee for President. And McCain couldn’t be happier. He has already gone into action and begun speaking with her base of women, latinos and blue-collar voters with ridiculously political statements like “there is a genuine affection for her here at McCain HQ. During her speech there was no small amount of pleading with the TV: ‘Don’t do it, you can still win!’” and this beauty aimed right for the heart of the Obama campaign balloon: “Sen. Clinton has really grown on us over here in Crystal City over the past few months,” … [she is] an “impressive candidate” who “inspired a generation of women” but “fell victim to a vast left-wing conspiracy that resented her generally centrist foreign policy views.”

If you read CNN.com’s Rebecca Sinderbrand, she leads her story with: “While Sen. Hillary Clinton was endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, some of those weighing in on her campaign Web site were less willing to concede.” So, we went to her website and you can too - Blog.HillaryClinton.com - to read what supporters were writing on their way out the door:

• “I will donate for your web site if you separate your web site from Obama”
• “…many of us are, for now, UNDECIDED, on what we will do.”
• “I am a Obama supportor and hope and pray we can unite together to take back the White House.”
• “I too, along with you Hillary, will work my heart out for Obama.”
• “Thank you for your amazing speech, Hillary. I was moved and inspired by your sincerity. I thought I’d never be able to switch allegiance, but you made it easier by throwing your wholehearted support behind Obama. Once again, women will wait and a man will be in charge, but those ‘18,000,000 cracks’ in the ultimate glass ceiling will bring it crashing down some day soon. Thank you for taking a hammer to it for us Hillary. You - and we with you - have truly made history.”
• “I’m with Hillary. Let’s crack the VP ceiling.”
• “Together let’s work our hearts out for Senator Obama!”
• “I hope those who are crying out that they’d rather vote for McCain than Obama are reacting out of hurt and will come to their senses.”
• “I have not been so sure that I could vote Obama come November”…”Come November I will do what is right, for me, for her for the country..I’ll pull that lever for a Democrat.”
• “My vote in November will go to Barack Obama now.”
• “Hillary, we will always support you and be there for you! Please be Obama’s running-mate!”
• “Two people, one America. Hillary will work with Obama for America.”
• “I will listen to the issues and unite around Obama once my mind has completely absorbed all of the events recently.”
• “Wanting a Democrat in office, I will back Obama, as Hillary has asked.”
• It will take me a few days to get there, but I won’t vote for McCain! I will get there for Obama. If she can do it, how could we not.”

We went through about 75% of Clinton blog postings and didn’t find anything shattering to suggest that Clinton supporters were leaving the Democratic Party. It is true that Sinderbrand stated that “some…were less willing to concede” but she purposely led the article with it when 95% of comments support Clinton’s endorsement of Obama to one degree or another. The Sinderbrand article is creating a stir and one must wonder why? Perhaps CNN is trying to get Clinton on the Obama ticket, perhaps CNN is trying to undermine the Obama campaign. Who knows? Only CNN does.

[Read more →]

Delegate totals are current as of the Puerto Rico primary held on June 1, 2008. The Republican nominee needs 1,191 delegates to be nominated and John McCain has already amassed that total. The Democratic nominee ONCE required 2,025 delegates to be nominated but that total changed after Michigan and Florida Democratic primary totals were re-distributed on Saturday, May 31, 2008. The Democratic nominee NOW NEEDS 93 additional delegates bringing the total to be nominated to 2,118 delegates.

[Read more →]

Going into the Montana and South Dakota primaries last night, the last night of primaries in this historic presidential primary season of 2008, Barack Obama needed 47 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. It didn’t matter how they came - from pledged delegates or super delegates.

Obama won Montana, winning 56% of the vote and the 9 pledged delegates that come with it. He lost South Dakota but picked up 6 pledged delegates. The combined nightly pledged delegate totaled 15 which left him 32 delegates away from the prize. Then, the super delegates kicked and and pushed him over the top. Within hours of polls closing, 56 super delegates lent their support to Obama that clearly suggested that it’s time to bring the Democratic Primary season to a close and commence focus on the big prize: the contest with Republican presidential nominee John McCain for the Presidency of the United States.

As of today, June 4th, Obama’s delegate totals look like this: 1,765 pledged delegates in addition to 389 super delegates totaling 2,154 delegates. The amount of delegates Obama needed to secure the nomination was 2,118. If you recall, 2,025 delegates were needed to win the democratic nomination until the Michigan and Florida fiascos caused the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to re-distribute delegate votes.

So, now that Obama is the unofficial Democratic nominee for President of the United States (it will be made official at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late Summer, August 25-28, is Hillary Clinton the likely selection as Vice Presidential running mate?

Former President Jimmy Carter weighed in on the subject today of a proposed “unity ticket” and called it, in his own words, “the worst mistake that could be made”. His point against Clinton joining Obama’s ticket was that the vulnerabilities of and differences between each other’s platform would be exposed and leveraged against them. He argued that there are already 50% of Democratic voters that will not vote for Clinton and he may be right. Tuesday night, before the Montana and South Dakota polls closed, Clinton mentioned that she would consider the Vice Presidency if it were in the best interest of the Party in November’s general election. then, a little while later, refused to concede the nomination to Obama. Some feel that she is contemptuous of Obama and lacks faith in him as the Party’s leader. Other’s feel that she is the divisive wedge that could lose the Presidency for the Democrats. Stay tuned. McCain will take advantage of this.

Back to Jimmy Carter… Carter thinks many Democrats feel Obama is not white enough for them, is not old enough or even experienced enough to lead U.S. domestic and foreign policy. And the kicker: perhaps his last name sounds too Arab. Carter feels that the combined deficiencies of each candidate would be “the worst of both worlds”.

However, there are those that worry about Clinton loyalists that have pledged to defect to the Republican party after the inopportune re-distribution of votes from the Michigan and Florida primaries, a re-calculation that favored Obama. Carter feels that, strategically, there are better choices, one among them being former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn who served 24 years in the Senate and is now co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Institute, a non-profit that tries to diminish worldwide dangers imposed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. A Georgian through and through, Nunn’s appointment would help Obama in conservative states that voted Republican in 2004. But, then again, the only states that voted Democrat in 2004 Presidential voting were Western, upper Midwest, and Northeast states.

How would a John McCain-Hillary Clinton Presidential ticket be received?

[Read more →]

2008 Presidential Primary Results

IOWA - January 3, 2008

WYOMING - January 5, 2008

NEW HAMPSHIRE - January 8, 2008

MICHIGAN - January 15, 2008

MICHIGAN - updated May 31, 2008

January 19, 2008

NEVADA

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA - January 26, 2008

FLORIDA - January 29, 2008

FLORIDA - updated May 31, 2008

MAINE - February 1, 2008

February 5, 2008 - SUPER TUESDAY

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

GEORGIA

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

KANSAS

MASSACHUSETTS

MINNESOTA

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEW JERSEY

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

NORTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

TENNESSEE

UTAH

WEST VIRGINIA

February 9, 2008

KANSAS

LOUISIANA

NEBRASKA

WASHINGTON

February 10, 2008

MAINE

February 12, 2008

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

February 19, 2008

HAWAII

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

March 4, 2008 - Little Super Tuesday - Clinton Survives, McCain Wins Nomination

OHIO

RHODE ISLAND

TEXAS

VERMONT

March 8, 2008

WYOMING

March 11, 2008

MISSISSIPPI

April 22, 2008

PENNSYLVANIA

May 6, 2008

INDIANA

NORTH CAROLINA

May 13, 2008

NEBRASKA

WEST VIRGINIA

May 20, 2008

KENTUCKY

OREGON

May 27, 2008

IDAHO

June 1, 2008

PUERTO RICO

June 3, 2008

MONTANA

NEW MEXICO

SOUTH DAKOTA

[Read more →]

Only Montana (16 pledged delegates) and South Dakota (15 pledged delegates) are left on the Democratic primary schedule, slated for Tuesday, June 3, 2008. According to My Lamppost, Barack Obama is 47 delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination for President. Hillary Clinton is 203 votes shy and cannot clinch with the two remaining primaries since the total for both equals 31 pledged delegate. Of course, according to delegate rules, the delegates are really the ones to decide at the Denver convention.

It is noted by many journalists and newspapers that Obama has the edge in the Montana and South Dakota primaries and assuming he musters 50% of pledged delegates, he will walk away tomorrow with 16 total pledged delegates, leaving him 31 delegates shy of the finish line. News today came out of Washington that the remaining 17 super delegates from the Senate will pledge to Obama but they will wait until after the final primary day tomorrow to commit and to also give their fellow Senator Clinton time to gracefully leave the race.

Assuming Obama wins 16 pledged delegates tomorrow and then is handed 17 super delegate votes in a few days, his delegate total nears 33, leaving him just 14 delegates shy. At this point or before, Clinton should leave the race. If she doesn’t, look for the DNC powers-that-be to step in to mediate (or mandate, depending on Clinton’s view) a settlement. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, was quoted as saying that there will be resolution by the end of June (read: before her Summer vacation begins). Clinton surely believes she will fare better against McCain and has the demographic support in the Democratic party that Obama doesn’t. Would would-be Clinton voters really vote McCain if she isn’t hte nominee? We’ll see. Would Clinton accept the VP role if offered by Obama? Or will she take the battle all the way to the Denver convention? Out of pressure, the odds are that she won’t take this to Denver. it will be an interesting talk between Pelosi and Clinton if this goes another 30 days.

[Read more →]

There are 9 presidential primaries left. However, three primaries are Republican only – Nebraska, Idaho and New Mexico. The six (6) remaining Democratic primaries are West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, all of which account for 217 pledged delegates.

Is the Democratic primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over? Let’s do the math.

On the eve of the West Virginia primary, Clinton trails Obama by 168 combined pledged and super delegate votes. Obama currently has 1,865 total delegates so needs 160
delegates to secure the Democratic nomination (2,025 – 1,865 = 160). Clinton, incidentally, needs 328 delegate votes. At stake over the next few final weeks are only 217 pledged delegates, 103 of which are at stake on May 20th in the Oregon and Kentucky Democratic primaries. As a result, Clinton cannot win the nomination on pledged delegates. There aren’t enough to cover the 328 she needs. There are enough delegates, though, to cover the delegates (160) Obama needs to grab the nomination.

How likely is it that Obama can win 160 pledged delegates over the remaining six (6) Democratic primaries? Not too likely. Obama would need to carry 75% of the vote to get over the top. In fact, the best he’s done recently - pre Reverend Jeremiah Wright and associations with the Muslim religion - was the 61% he picked up in Wyoming back in early March. Even in Illinois on Super Tuesday, he could only muster 64% of the vote.

So, it seems, the whole shebang gets decided by super delegates or at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

[Read more →]

Counting Democratic pledged and super delegates, Barack Obama still maintains a healthy lead going into the next primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. Hillary Clinton is still trailing Obama by 125 delegates, 150 if you just count pledged delegates. Does Clinton still have a chance of upending Obama? Can she surpass him? Can she convince the super delegates that she is the best choice and despite what the pledged delegate count says, that she is the candidate that should receive the super delegate endorsement? If she does, she will be the Democratic nominee. Obama has alot of work in front of him. it didn’t have to be like this, Barack.

What happened in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary?
In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, there were lots of voters who decided their vote at the last minute and among those last minute voters about 60% voted for Clinton. Clinton also received alot of blue collar type votes, lots of women votes and lots of older votes.

But the real question is, why, after months and months of getting to know Clinton and Obama, are there so many people deciding their vote at the last minute? Are people wanting to vote for Obama but still walking uneasy not knowing what’s behind the rhetoric? Did the last debate held on April 16th have anything to do with it? The debate was watched by more Americans (10 million) than any other debate we’ve had so far in this 2008 Presidential Primary season.

Obama is definitely getting rocked a bit by probing interview questions but I guess that comes with the turf when you’re the front-runner because the the only negative to standing on the front-runner throne is that we Americans like to bounce you off of it. Pretty large negative. Just ask Britney Spears. Clinton began her campaign stating emphatically that she was more than prepared to be the next Commander-in-Chief, citing experience in the Oval Office as First Lady and as Senator from New York. Obama can’t match her record as hard as he tries - one term as Illinois Senator - so has tried to rely on rhetoric - “CHANGE” - and endorsements (read: fundraising).

Many American voters will prop you up on good looks and rhetoric but, in the end, it really does boil down to issues and experience which may explain teh high number of last minute voters in Pennsylvania. When pressed by the media about the effect on revenues given an increase in the capital gains tax, Obama seemed ill-prepared to answer. (The question was based on that fact that government revenues actually increased when the capital gains tax was cut. Conversely, government revenues decreased when the capital gains rate was increased.)

We are entering the proverbial 4th quarter of the 2008 Democratic Primary season. It is one thing to build a lead, another to maintain it and quite another to preserve it when the momentum swings to your opponent. American voters are asking the tough questions (through the media and blogs) and this requires that a few layers of Obama’s “issue onion” be peeled back. What is underneath the “CHANGE” rhetoric? Does he understand economics, social policy, foreign policy. Is he poised enough? When TV viewers witness frustration, discontent and non-answers, they project that on to other issues, challenges and confrontations. Can Obama stand strong against other foreign leaders? Can he ably negotiate with Republicans if the Democrats do not gain a majority in the mid-term elections? Basically, does he really and truly “get it”?

Clinton, on the other hand, is somewhat ascerbic and not as good-looking as Obama. She lacks charisma and really does have a whiney voice. Does she have to continually yell into that microphone of hers? Does she think I can’t hear her? But, in the end, who do you trust in the White House? Clinton is right. She has been there. She has had on-the-job training and was given Presidential-type responsibilities while acting as First Lady. She is smart, like Obama, but seems better prepared to stand up to resistance, discontent and threats. She seems better prepared to lead.

The opinon of the Lamppost is this: Obama could have secured the Democratic nomination a while back but super delegates, and now regular voters, are wondering if he really is
better than Clinton and if he even has a chance in hell of beating McCain. So many super delegates are worried, in our opinion, that he will be swallowed whole by McCain. And, we
tend to think this is possible because “change” rhetoric will not fly in the general Presidential election debates. The issues will be debated. A grasp of economics will be required. So will a pragmatic and experienced view of foreign policy.

The super delegates are awaiting a few things before they really commit to either Democratic candidate: one, they want to see how the country continues to vote in the seven (7 Democratic primaries that remain, and two, they will take measure of each as a viable opponent to John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for President. The feeling is that if Clinton continues to trail Obama in pledged delegate totals yet continues to mount momentum with primary victories, the super delegates will not support Obama and swing the nomination to Clinton. In effect, the race is tied. Whichi candidate will reach down and grab that “something extra” to convince us of his or her strength, intelligence, quick wit and poise?

[Read more →]

Last week, in our post entitled Obama Sweeps 9 Primaries - Leads by Only 98 Delegates? we said that Hillary Clinton would have to win at least one of the large primaries on “Little Super Tuesday” in order to stay in the Democratic primary race.

Well, tonight Hillary Clinton regained her momentum and threw a pin into the momentum balloon that Barack Obama was riding. As of 9pm PST, Clinton has won Rhode Island and Ohio and is winning Texas with 58% of the precincts reporting. Earlier Obama won in Vermont.

So Who is Winning the Democratic Primary Race Now?

Even thought it’s early, let’s have some fun with the Democratic delegate counts adn assume that the vote percentages in each state as of 9pm PST hold true:

Updated Delegate Totals: Barack Obama would have 1,543 delegates and Hillary Clinton would have 1,473 delegates. Barack Obama would lead by 70 delegates but Clinton would have successfully stayed off Obama’s momentum, his message and a possible clinching Democratic nomination. Still, though, Clinton has alot of work to do to regain those 70 delegates and with apportioned delegates, it darned may be impossible unless she can whip off a winning streak similar to Obama’s the last month or convince the superdelegates to vote her way.

[Read more →]

Who are you going to vote for President? My father tends to vote according to his wallet. My mother veers toward the religious issues, abortion rights chief among them.

It seems that your Presidential vote in November 2008 will be influenced by your personal agenda and then perhaps by your social standing. In other words, if you’re wealthy or a business owner, you may vote according to taxation ideology. If you’re Hispanic, African American or a woman, you may vote according to health insurance or taxation ideology. If you’re vote is influenced by religion, you may vote according to tenets outlined in your particular religious constitution, i.e., Bible, Koran, Torah, etc: chiefly abortion rights and same sex partnerships.

When Ronald Reagan, our 41st U.S. President who served from 1981 – 1989, ran for re-election, he asked if we were better off than we were 4 years earlier. In other words, did we have more money? Were we making more money? Did we have a good or better job? Did we feel good about our country? The populace seemed to get the point, agreed that they were better off, and elected him to a 2nd term overwhelming over Walter Mondale. I’m not a Reagan apologist. Many things did not go as planned. What I liked about him was that he had charisma, made us feel really good about being Americans, was able to criticize without extracting pounds of flesh (Berlin Wall speech comes to mind). Supply side economics (aka trickle down economics) didn’t work out the way he planned but his plan was new and revolutionary. Many benefited from his economic policies. Many didn’t. But, he tried. He believed in being a good person to his spouse, to his friends, to his colleagues in power. He was decent. He believed in wealth, did not punish those for being rich and tried to legislate a trickle down effect where millions of others could get rich also.

I am neither a conservative nor liberal. I believe in some ideologies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats. I also disagree with some ideologies promoted by both Parties.

• I am a business owner.
• I believe in helping people.
• I don’t believe in Imperialism.
• I do believe in maintaining a prepared self-defense system, i.e., military.
• I believe, from experience, that we need health insurance reform but think it’s necessary that it not be taken over by the State.
• I don’t think there should be a wide divide between rich and poor, at least between those that are rich and those that want to be rich. To those that want a monthly paycheck without working for it, well, I don’t want to pay for you.
• However, if you want to work but can’t, we’ll find a way to take care of you.
• If you’re a veteran and are handicapped mentally, physically or emotionally, my country should support you, reward you and thank you.
• I believe that smoking is not healthy but it doesn’t mean I advocate going into Tobacco Road in South Carolina and immediately eliminating 1,000’s of farming, infrastructure, and managerial jobs as well as family structures. Let’s create a plan to grow something else or retrain the affected population so that they can continue to work and live a meaningful, contributory life.
• I don’t believe in building walls to prevent people from entering our country especially after the symbol of our country in the 80’s - Reagan - sat atop the Berlin Wall and raged against that “communist symbol”.
• I also believe that emigration to the United States is a privilege and a right. Hispanics must promote, nurture and preserve their culture - continue to speak Spanish - but they must also learn to speak English like the Italian immigrants did in 1880-1920 when millions of them entered the United States to escape injustices, poverty and disease in Italy. Same should be said of Asians, Filipinos, Russians – all ethnic groups emigrating to the U.S. Preserve your traditions but help build a unified America. Sure, monitor emigration. Repel those that seek to hurt America. But, make a plan for those that can and want to contribute. Retrain immigrants like you would retrain workers on Tobacco Road.
• How about the War in Iraq? Not sure I was a proponent of the war in Iraq. But since we’re in there, why would we leave a political vacuum and potential unrest in a region uniformly known for 1,000’s of years of turmoil and unrest? Don’t you think that Obama or Clinton would immediately gain the advice of their military chiefs and, after say, 10 minutes, decide that we had to stay in after all? I’m not opponents of Clinton or Obama – I just don’t trust them on this issue. Obama could be naïve; Clinton’s been there. She knows better.
• And my last point: why must every Democrat seek to punish the rich? What is wrong with getting rich, being rich and staying rich? There are bad rich people and there are bad poor people. Sure, there are company executives that steal and cheat. There are still those executives that do everything legally yet everything immorally – accepting huge stock payoffs while 2,000 employees are laid off. Wrong message to send. But, what? We’re going to legislate against it? The media pick up on it and skewer these people anyway. They really don’t ever get away with it and they represent such a minor percentage of wealthy people anyway. Millions of people that are rich today didn’t begin life as wealthy people. However, they did see an America that allowed them to get rich. So, why should someone that risks everything, works tirelessly for 18 hours a day, pays taxes and employs people be punished because someday that risk pays off in the form of a lot of money? The stock market is famous for promoting the phrase “high risk, high reward”. If you risk your time and energy, social relationships, deferment of a home so you can pay an employee’s salary and oil bills, why would you not deserve to be wealthy? Do you know why Michael Jordan made $30 million in the last year of his contract with the Chicago Bulls? Because he made his owner 10x (guess) that amount throughout his playing days. Heck, his visits to the arenas of opponents were typically sold out events – how much money did he make for them? How much did he make for the entire NBA during his playing tenure? The $30m was a thank you note for all that he had done. He deserved it.

Do you know what millions of people with money do - including the rich, wealthy and upper middle class? They own businesses that employ millions of people. When interest rates are stable (and low enough) they build real estate, they add onto their plants, they buy machinery, they buy office supplies, they entertain at restaurants that employ cooks and waiters, they buy nice cars sold by car salesmen, take their cars to gas stations to buy gas from gas station owners. Their employees buy homes which have to be built by construction companies or financed by bankers or mortgage brokers. Finished raw materials for home construction must be purchased from lumber yards. Their employees get married and have kids. Kids eat a lot so there are many supermarket visits where a lot of fruits and vegetables are purchased. Fruits and vegetables are picked by farmers. Kids go to schools (and daycare) that employ teachers. The point is that there is a trickle down effect here. People make money in our capitalist system because others can afford to SPEND it.

Rich people, or let’s just say people with expendable income, also donate time and money to charities. I’m not naïve: many would not donate if the tax code did not provide incentive but… I’m also not naïve: many still would give to charities despite the tax law. Charities employ administrators who, in turn, designate donations to needy people.

So, again, I ask the question: why must there be advocates of increasing the taxes for rich people? Why not decrease taxes for the rich and middle class? Right, you ask, where’s the money going to come from?

We spend, what, a half billion dollars a day in Iraq? There is money in the budget to address social and financial disadvantage and misfortune. The problem is that the lobbies for the military are stronger than the homeless lobby. We just need, as a country, to get smart about keeping the dream alive for everyone that wants to participate in the dream.

In short, we are only as good as our weakest links: racial divides, class divides, laziness, obesity, imperialism, know-it-all-ism, homelessness, intolerance et al. Let’s get with it

So, who will you vote for? I’m thinking McClintama!

[Read more →]