Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

Some in the ’science’ community are honest and some created Climategate.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists’ willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer “consensus” and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

Some ‘deny’ Climategate while others have known about the fraud for a long time.

“My presentation will be the unique one,” said Inhofe, a climate change skeptic who is investigating allegations that some scientists manipulated data to provide proof of global warming. “They’re not even close on votes in the United States Senate.”

“They’re cooking the science,” Inhofe said. “The same things that came out on these e-mails is what I said four years ago.”

You need a flawless scheme and ‘perps’ who can carry it out in order to commit the perfect crime.

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

As with all investigations the best strategy is to follow the money.

As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.

Al Gore’s scam is not especially creative. His strategy is well known in the life insurance market. An old technique is to create fear in the mind of your prospect that their spouse and other dependents will be left penniless if they expire prematurely. The claim is the life insurance they buy will protect them from that fate. While the salesman may actually believe he is helping you he knows his income depends on a successful outcome to the presentation. Then there are the scam artists whose only interest is getting rich off your fear, real or imagined.

The faster someone wants you to act on their suggestion the more likely it is a scam.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Soros scheming at Copenhagen: Eco-redistribution of wealth (Michelle Malkin) 

On the topic of what has been referred to as climategate, a word. Scandal is a word. But more words than that are presented by the following source which sums up the situation rather well. Don’t be fooled by the excerpt presented here. The account is balanced and may be completely on point.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet

And another group of words from WSJ demonstrate the single item that many seem to ignore.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

If ’spin’ can be defined as emphasizing your argument and diminishing that of your opposition rather than simply lying about a situation for damage control then the following from the MSM demonstrates the strategy.

Skeptics have also pounced on an e-mail from Jones to colleagues that reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

It’s not so much that AGW ’skeptics’ have ‘pounced’ on anything but anticipate those embarrassed by climategate will do their best to dismiss this event just as they do to others who do not agree with their arguments about something they named AGW.

Providing these hacked docs are genuine, which seems to be the case and is mentioned in the link for the first excerpt above, less than honorable actions were taken by AGW scientists that may include fudging the numbers and sabotaging opposing conclusions from fellow scientists. What that demonstrates is a breech of trust without which science is not science. How do you expect people to accept your findings if you engaged in dishonest tactics to support an agenda that has nothing to do with science?

That’s the word, science. If it is not honest, it is not science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What the hell is Newt Gingrich thinking? For one who decided to either allow his persona to demonstrate what conservative values are or parlayed that perception to be used for political advantage another decision by the former Speaker of the House and focal point of the once proud and subsequently abandoned ‘contract with America’ has produced another obvious contradiction.

He supports Scazzafava (beans) for the NY (23)???

Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” Gingrich said in his statement. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”

That is simply a politically motivated assessment. If you support a candidate based on a belief that they have the best chance to win while ignoring their rejection of conservative and traditional American values the culture of corruption is what you endorse. An absolutely appalling decision by someone whom this blog has always viewed as suspect although few if any posts have expressed that position. Sometimes it is reasonable to withhold comment until more evidence is gathered. The apparent revelation of the Gingrich departure from conservative principle demands notice and commentary.as well as strong support for a candidate previously analyzed as a wild card based on lack of relevant data.

At this point supporting a currently unknown quantity like Mr Hoffman is an easy decision. Scozzafava’s candidacy is also reported to have triggered a deep divide among House Republicans, with some of the most conservative members refusing to support her campaign. And with good reason ‘the most conservative members’ distance themselves from such an alliance.

The most prominent GOP endorser of radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava is openly musing about running for president in 2012.
No, thanks:

Check the link above to support this blog’s position that Newt Gingrich has left the conservative reservation on this and possibly other issues.

Support and advance conservative principles or withdraw from the GOP. That is this blog’s recommendation for politicians who are registered Republicans.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republican Nationl Committee vs. Conservatives

Doug Hoffman Sarah Palin: Palins Hoffman Endorsement: (video)

President Obama looks more like a politician these days than a Messiah. The notion that Democrats have the uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is finding support in various news reports and other current stories these days. All is not well within in the Democratic party as the White House and the Congressional majority struggle to cement their agenda in the face of internal opposition and a media focus pointing to difficulties within the GOP.

Obama may produce a self-inflicted wound with his handling of the interrogation photo fiasco. Likewise Pelosi has lost whatever credibility she may have had by mishandling questions on what she knew and when on matters related to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ Now Dems are pushing against detainees being released in the US. Does it get any better than this? And health care along with other liberal agenda items will not be slam dunks as they have been viewed since the inauguration of America’s first black and white President this past January.

Sure, their will be no socialized medicine and the health care industry will solve the rising cost and uninsured problems for Obama. Just like the Clinton’s solved all this in the nineties.

Maybe the current economic problems along with political turmoil and worldwide disarray will cause widespread improvements across the board for the entire planet. But it certainly won’t be anything but a bumpy ride regardless of what happens. And the best part for the US is that liberals own the consequence of success or failure by virtue of getting what they wished for….. the majority status as a political party.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The reporters being held in North Korea and facing trial, for who knows what, work for Al Gore? Senate Dems, as mentioned above, have legislation to block detainee transfers to the US. The health care kabuki dance rages on.

SEOUL, South Korea - Two U.S. journalists arrested near North Korea’s border with China on accusations of illegal entry and “hostile acts” will be tried by Pyongyang in early June, state media said Thursday.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for former Vice President Al Gore’s San Francisco-based Current TV media venture, were detained March 17 while reporting on North Korean refugees living in China.

WASHINGTON — New legislation by Senate Democrats would fund the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but it would block the transfer of any of the detainees to the United States.

The move to sidestep a political minefield is a rebuff to President Barack Obama, whose promise to close the Guantanamo facility within a year of taking office has run into Republicans and Democrats opposed to bringing accused terrorists onto U.S. shores.

WASHINGTON — The White House scrambled to unify Democrats behind a single health care appeal Wednesday — lower costs, plenty of choice — amid concerns Republicans could scare votes away with images of a ghastly system run by bureaucrats. A key senator pushed to enforce an offer from care providers to trim $2 trillion in costs over the next decade.

Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he wanted to build cost-saving mechanisms the industry is devising into sweeping health care overhaul legislation his committee is writing.

(Video below provided for perspective)

Among a long list of other witnesses providing testimony on The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 at a hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (whew!) are Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. Mr Gore’s prepared remarks are available on the House website and the linked text below will retrieve it for you. The excerpt below is representative of Mr Gore’s position on this issue. It expresses eminent crisis and his assertion we must act on it now. He has held this opinion for a long time.

By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels, which is the common thread running through all three of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil.

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet.

While Mr Gore expects you to believe his opinion is conclusive his own words, like Rep Lowey in another post on this blog, betray him. His first argument supporting his opinion in the prepared remarks states, ‘the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.’ It would be more convincing if Mr Gore’s phrasing here used the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may.’ It underscores that even Mr Gore cannot be certain of his own view.

In another argument presented regarding the salmon population Mr Gore uses the phrase ‘Researchers are now working to determine the cause….’ While he states the dire consequences of not acting right now on this subtopic he admits the cause is not currently known. To be fair, Mr Gore makes other statements and draws other conclusions that would have to be researched to respond to in this post. And that is beyond the scope of this post by virtue of the time required to perform the task. The point is without dissecting every word in his prepared remarks Mr Gore regularly states all the facts are not available yet urges we act this very minute. And they wonder why so many reject his opinion.

A link is provided below from the subcommittee’s webpage on this hearing. It includes a witness list, an announcement that the hearing will be broadcast today on CSPAN and other links and information.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Day 4

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Thrilla in Vanilla: Gore vs. Gingrich in Global Warming ‘Showdown’? 

With going green going crazy and global warming fear monger, Al Gore, the failed Presidential contender fanning the flames of doom, one of the strongest criticisms of biofuels like ethanol made from corn was two-fold. It takes more energy to produce corn-based ethanol than can be derived from it and using the amount of corn required to have any significant impact in moving from fossil fuels places extreme pricing pressures on the food supply.

With most of the ‘alternative’ sources of energy years off in the future in terms of practical application, the flames the likes of Al Gore, et al, are fanning are not producing a solution rather a panic of catastrophic proportions. And the far left loves this strategy. Create new victims, attack manufactured villains and the lines of people trying to get taxpayer funding to ‘research’ alternatives may eventually reach around the globe. That is about the only connection between the globe and the term, global economy.

But while the opposing sides, of which there may be more than two, sort out the energy future in this country, one report indicates we should take a more reasoned approach to any major shifts in widespread use of alternative energy sources. According to the report below, “The process yields about eight times more energy than it consumes so it is a much more energy efficient way to produce ethanol.”

If that statement is true, the case for sorghum as an alternative energy source is probably one of the more promising developments in this crazy pursuit. The pursuit is not crazy because it is intended to find non-fossil fuel alternatives but because of the total abandon excercised by most proponents. The Chicken Little posture demonstrated by the most fanatical fans does more damage than good. A little care and a reasoned approach to solutions will minimize mistakes and speed any postive results.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sorghum: A Biofuel Alternative?

By Paul Sisco
Washington
Biofuel Sorghum report / Broadband - Download (WM)
Biofuel Sorghum report / Broadband - Watch (WM)

International research scientists are meeting in Houston, Texas August 19-22 to discuss various biofuel alternatives to corn, especially sorghum. Some scientists say sorghum - cultivated for food and fodder in various parts of the world - might one day help power our vehicles. VOA’s Paul Sisco has today’s Searching for Solutions report.

In the United States, sweet sorghum is grown for livestock feed and also used as a sweetener in the form of a syrup. In India, the sweet juice inside the plant’s stalk is turned into ethanol and used as a fuel.

This has spurred William Rooney and his team at Texas A & M to work with sorghum. They say it grows faster than corn and can produce more ethanol per plant. “In the near future as we move forward you will see these types of crops become more and more prominent,” Rooney said.

Today, nearly all the ethanol in the US comes from corn. It is widely used as a gasoline additive. But using corn-based ethanol has not stopped gasoline prices from rising, and researchers are experimenting with algae, grasses, and plant stalks as biofuels.

Gene Stevens, at the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri, works with sorghum.

“We produced as much ethanol with the corn as we did with the sweet sorghum but the only advantage was that we used less fertilizer with the sweet sorghum,” he explains. “It may be that sweet sorghum may have a niche in some of those soils that are not so productive.”

Also, producing ethanol from sorghum uses less energy than corn — says Mark Winslow with the non-profit International Crops Research Institute.

“The process yields about eight times more energy than it consumes so it is a much more energy efficient way to produce ethanol,” Winslow says.

Critics of corn based ethanol production say it has contributed to rising food prices because of the amount of grain used to make the fuel. That explains, in part, why the search is on to find other biofuel sources.

“I think you are going to hear more about the crops that are starting to make sense,” Rooney says.

Among them sorghum, says Rooney, a proven source of ethanol with more potential than corn.

crossposted at:
Reject the UN

Listen up fans of international politics. The United Nations is borrowing a page from the uber liberal playbook. Do your best to stir guilt within the richest in the industrial nations so they may follow by preaching to ordinary citizens to justify spending public funds for private agendas. With a knack for plagiarism that would have Joe Biden blush, the UN is adopting the methods of the man who fathered the global warming ponzi scheme, Al Gore.

Are there environmental issues that pose a threat to the long term health of the biosphere we call Earth. Yes. But the current frenzy and panic caused by Al Gore and friends has nothing to do with that. Ecology and all things environmental are nothing new. Even before the sixties when such terms became household words much had been written and addressed on the topic. If two so-called oil shortages or crisis situations took place with no substantive demand or economic viability of alternative forms of energy as a result over the last 30 or 40 years, it is fair to say that few people took the notion seriously enough, including the scientific community, to implement effective change.

Oh, it was or is a corporate conspiracy. Ya, like the 100 or 200 mpg internal combustion engine they bought and hid from the public. So now, why is every other corporation on the planet tripping over themselves to jump on board of Al Gore’s Good Ship Eco-flop? There’s gold in them there hills, that’s why. And it did not take very long for the United Nations to wake up to that fact. Their never ending pursuit of guilt dollars with which to line their pockets now includes posturing on the global warming scare.

Hedging their bets with the advent of cascading failures related to the flagship Millennium Development Goals, supporting Al Gore’s global warming scheme with appeals for money of their own indicates a true talent for extortion. But then you may need to read the full article to appreciate the style with which the scam is presented. Apparently for some, having a large contingent supporting the current rage on GW with an equally large contingent rejecting the notion has not sent up enough red flags leading to a continued search for the truth.

UN Says Billions Needed to Help Poor Countries Deal with Climate Change
By Marianne Kearney
Jakarta
28 November 2007

The United Nations is calling on developed countries to donate billions of dollars to help poorer nations deal with the devastating effects of climate change. Marianne Kearney has more from Jakarta.

A new report by the U.N. Development Program paints a dire picture of how poor people will be affected by climate change. The report calls on first world countries to pay for the damage their greenhouse gas emissions inflict on developing nations.

Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. The U.N. warns they will be especially vulnerable to the effects of rising temperatures, even if tough measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions are implemented now.

Hakan Bjorkman, the U.N. Development Program’s country director for Indonesia, says more funding is needed to help poorer countries avoid loss of life and income as a result of droughts, flooding and food shortages.

“Only $26 million have been spent through the UNFCC mechanism on adaptation, while something like $86 billion is needed by 2015,” he said.

Bjorkman says most of the funding to help countries deal with the effects of climate change has flowed to wealthy nations rather than poor ones.

In addition, the U.N. estimates that a fund of $25 billion to $50 billion a year is needed to help developing countries switch to cleaner energy sources.

The UNDP’s report says a rise of just two degrees in the oceans’ temperature would cause glaciers in the Himalayas to melt, affecting the food and water source for two billion people in Asia. Increased flow in the region’s rivers would displace 22 million people downstream in Vietnam alone.

The UNDP also warns that rising sea levels would cause the collapse of coral reefs, affecting coastal communities in Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia.

The report calls on developing countries to cut their greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, and says India and China should cut their emissions by 20 percent in the same time frame.

Bjorkman says there is a stark difference between the ability of rich and poor countries to adapt to global warming.

“For example, in the United Kingdom where $1.2 billion is being used to prepare for flooding, in the Netherlands people are investing, with government support, in some kind of floating houses, so when the flooding comes they can actually float up,” said Bjorkman .

While in Ethiopia, adaptation is about women having to walk much further to get water and in Bangladesh its about people building flood shelters on bamboo sticks and in Vietnam there are swimming lessons for women and children.”

The U.N. report also warns that in Indonesia, climate change has already helped lead to an increase in water borne diseases such as malaria and dengue, and in child malnutrition.

Looking back at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama as naive and irresponsible, the statement should be left on the table while everyone considers recent actions by the former First Lady. Her campaign finance irregularities are as bad as those of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff yet few if any in the liberal ranks will press the issue as they would if she were a Republican. Jefferson’s $90K in the freezer is evidence of that.

Promoting a transparent remake or sequel to her failed health care idea more than a decade ago is as irresponsible as anything with which she accuses Obama. Add to that her lame energy and education policies and a manic attachment to the fringe left with a global warming panic and this self-proclaimed centrist earns her socialist moniker.

But for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards inventing villains and feeding on their campaign designed victims is not enough. Perhaps the stress of a longer than usual campaign season is beginning to crumble their plans. Lately, HRC can’t find enough gaffes to fill a day on the trail with the TipGate and QuestionGate to follow ChinaGate and TravelGate. So the planted questions story now has Clinton and Edwards feeding on each others carcasses and looking all the naive and irresponsible which she accused Obama of being.

‘Planted’ questions: Edwards compares Clinton to Bush; she says it won’t happen again

Clinton The news — and now confirmation — about instances when the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions” (as The New York Times rather cautiously puts it this morning) has opened up another round of sharp words with one of her Democratic contenders.

As our Gannett colleagues at the Des Moines Register write:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was acting like President Bush’s when it recently planted a softball question from an Iowa audience member, rival Democratic candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In a sign of the increasingly bitter feud between the leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Monday accused John Edwards of acting like President Bush and dividing Democrats.

A student says she was told what to ask during a Clinton event in Newton, Iowa.

On Saturday, Edwards, while campaigning in Iowa, criticized the Clinton camp for planting a question in the audience, saying the practice is “what George Bush does.”

“George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor,” the former senator from North Carolina said.

But it is Edwards who is acting more like the sitting Republican president, the Clinton camp says.

“What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Monday. “Sen. Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

This sort of behavior is problematic for the Democrats and is present throughout the party. Their strategy to attack the Bush Administration, appeal to the fringe left by condemning the military, maverick missions to appease state sponsors of terrorism and generally characterizing all conservatives or Republicans as evil is as complete a failure as one could imagine.

The Congressional majority owned by the Democrats since the November 2006 midterm elections has once again delivered proof that their party is not capable of leading a scavenger hunt much less a government. Their giddiness at winning the last Congressional majority omitted any consideration that one has to actually bring forward sensible initiatives to perform adequately in politics and have any chance of success.

This post ends with an excerpt from a WaPo item.

The Can’t-Win Democratic Congress
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it’s like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party’s presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton– who has been in Washington since her husband’s election as president in 1992 — is to criticize politics as usual.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

By Michael Bowman
Washington
15 August 2007

Bowman report (mp3) - Download 776k audio clip
Listen to Bowman report (mp3) audio clip

A new poll of likely U.S. voters shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining her frontrunner status among Democratic voters in next year’s presidential race, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading the Republican field. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Senator Clinton with 36 percent backing among Democrats, up one percent from a survey in June, with strong support among women and working class voters. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is holding steady in second place, at 21 percent, and is favored among Democrats with college degrees.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has stated he has no intention of running for office, polled third with 15 percent support, ahead of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at nine percent.

Mrs. Clinton may lead the Democratic field, but the news is not all positive for the one-time first lady, according to the head of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, Maurice Carroll.

“Trailing her is a big ‘Hillary hostility’ factor which does raise questions, feeds those doubts about [whether she] can win in November [in next year’s election],” he said. “Forty-eight to 43 percent, Americans tell the poll they have a favorable impression of her. But 43 is a big number, the negative side, and that is the highest of any of the candidates.”

Months ago, some analysts predicted that Senator Obama, whose father was Kenyan, would eventually receive overwhelming backing from black and other minority voters. But the Quinnipiac poll shows no such trend to date, with Senator Clinton doing well among all racial and ethnic groups within the Democratic Party.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads with 28 percent support, up one percent from June. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney comes in second with 15 percent, followed by actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson with 12 percent and Arizona Senator John McCain with 11 percent. Mr. Thompson has yet to formally announce his candidacy.

Carroll notes that Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion and favors legal rights for homosexual couples - positions that do not endear him with the socially-conservative base of the Republican Party. But he says the former mayor has one great strength that propels him to the top of the Republican field:

“It’s 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City when the terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. His performance then in rallying the city, reassuring the city - and to an extent the nation, earned him all sorts of plaudits and that is his big pitch. Of those who are for him, more than a third cited his performance after 9/11, his anti-terrorist credentials,” he said.

How would top Democratic and Republican contenders fare if the presidential election were held today? The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary Clinton edging Rudy Giuliani 46 to 43 percent, and a draw between Giuliani and Barack Obama at 42 percent each. The poll did not pose a hypothetical match-up of Mitt Romney against a Democratic challenger.

Such polls provide only a snapshot of public opinion at the time they are conducted. The first contest of the presidential primary season is still months away, in January, and the general election is more than a year off.

Friday, June 29, 2007
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination is viewed as politically liberal by 47% of American voters. While that’s down from 55% a month ago, it’s still higher than the percentage of voters who see her major opponents as politically liberal. Just 42% say that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is politically liberal while 41% say that label applies to Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

from MoreWhat.com:
This is strange enough but the entire report at Rasmussen rates how conservatives, ‘moderates’ and liberals view the Queen of Cringe in terms of political leanings. It would be more accurate to rank her as not conservative, moderate or liberal. HRC is not concerned with the agenda of any political persuasion. She is only concerned about HRC. To say whatever is deemed necessary to enter the White House is it. There is no other agenda. Get in the White House and try to rule the planet HRC style.

For 2008, the GOP in Congress is probably going to lose some more members in light of events since the midterms. The Democratic majority has been so pitiful since the midterms they will lose some members also. Net effect, to early to tell who will be the majority next time.

For President, your choices on the Dems side are too risky. No explanation should be necessary in terms of HRC. The personal and political history are enough of a reason for an informed voter to reject Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Barack Obama has some staunch support from a wide audience it is probable he will not be able to win enough key states to win the nomination. Plus it is his first time out and coupled with the limited experience chances are slim. Edwards and Richardon will suffer from fund raising difficulties indicating their limited support. Edwards will do better than Richardson in the first primary or two. But they will both fail.

So your only choice is on the GOP side of the world. McCain’s bid is essentially over though he denies it and never really got started after a pathetic open with little attention paid to fund raising. Alienating deep pocket contributors from the past and taking hard stands on Iraq and illegal immigration were the stake in the heart. Giuliani will likewise succumb to liberal attitudes and history shortcomings after an intense attempt to rebuild his image and look Presidential. Brownback and others will go the way of most 2nd tier candidates and the final contest will be between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. If Thompson’s strategy does not betray him he may have an edge over Romney. If the success of his strategy does not launch him to the stars after the annoying delays of an announcement, if it ever comes, Romney may have won enough from early spending, continued fund raising success and victories in the early states to make it a convention fight for the nomination.

Barring a massive scandal or two on either side of the Presidential race for 2008, Romney or Thompson will likely face Clinton or Obama in the election. The Dems will lose again and begin the mourning and another allegation of voting fraud and a stolen election. The GOP victor will face a first term with another slim Democratic majority in Congress. But the GOP members of Congress will have seen the error of their party ways and provide even more difficulties for the Dems and retake the majority in the midterms following the 2008 election.

Go ahead, suggest that this is not a probable outcome over the next few years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

June 16, 2007(The Nation)
This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.

“I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!” exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, “Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you.” Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described “Hillary resisters” — those who believe that “she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe,” as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, “who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

The benefit of a long campaign season is ample time to vet the candidates and convince the uninformed about people like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Given enough time, everyone will come around and understand the Clinton legacy and the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton is not good for the United States.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It sounds good but like most commitments or campaign promises reality is a President is not a King. A President cannot simply say this is what will be done and it happens. To be fair, all candidates will at some point make similar announcements. It is just part of the game. Now it is the public’s responsibility to test the candidates on such statements rather than nod in agreement or sneer in opposition.

This latest press release by Rudy Giuliani’s camp may indicate he is feeling pressure via the polls and his campaign’s exposure in the media or lack of same. What would have made this an historic proclamation by a candidate is if Rudy had addressed how he would actually get this done or what obstacles he sees in pursuing this grand plan.

Like ‘5. I will impose accountability on Washington.’ How many times have we heard that one? Currently the Democratic majority has claimed victory on draining the swamp (Pelosi) yet the ethics legislation requiring an outside entity to oversee compliance with ethics is suffocating in committee. The bill itself is a joke. The independent status of the ethics body will be entirely under the control of Congress. So, Rudy, how would your effort achieve any more success? Be specific. And offering tax breaks to solve health care issues is totally lame. That is not the problem. The mechanisms that drive the economics of health care is the problem. You get the idea, right?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

06-12-2007

Rudy Giuliani Unveils Twelve Commitments to the American People

During a speech at the Old Bedford Town Hall in New Hampshire today, Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced Twelve Commitments to the American people, a bold vision aimed at moving America forward through change and reform, overcoming new challenges and increasing accountability in Washington.

Rudy’s Twelve Commitments are based on the principles of giving people more freedom, more power, and more responsibility over their own lives, while protecting our nation, strengthening our economy, and improving the quality of life.

“I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism,” Giuliani said. “My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it’s the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington.”

Mayor Giuliani will travel the country this summer to detail each of his Twelve Commitments.

The Twelve Commitments:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

It has been rather quiet lately on the campaign front. Oh sure, there are the obligatory reports that typically repeat what has already been said like this one is doing, but little else of any new significance is out there. Probably signs of a long campaign season or there is just nothing dramatic to report.

The opinion here is the GOP still has three announced primary contenders and one or two second tier candidates with Gingrich in his own words unlikely to jump in and Fred Thompson expected to announce on July 11 before an appearance on national TV.

The Dems have the two for one Clinton campaign. Buy Hillary Rodham Clinton and get William Jefferson Clinton for free. Take a flyer on Barack Obama or John Edwards or waste your vote on one of the others. The only entertainment that could come from the left is if Al Gore threw his hat in the ring. How’d that be for handing the Clinton’s a little payback. While there are no Al Gore fans at this website, being the only Dem to not benefit from an association with the Clinton gang, anyone could find humor in Al trying to exact some revenge by spoiling the Clinton conspiracy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney, Clinton Secure Strong N.H. Leads in Recent Polls

By - Beth LaMontagne
(June 11, 2007)
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continues to widen his lead in the New Hampshire polls over rivals U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. A Franklin Pierce/WBZ poll conducted after the New Hampshire Republican presidential debate shows 27 percent of likely Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for Romney, 18 percent for Giuliani and 17 percent for McCain.

While this is a significant leap for Romney, who received the support of 22 percent of respondents in a similar poll conducted in March, the most drastic change was in Giuliani and McCain’s numbers. Three months ago, 29 percent of likely Republican voters said they supported the senator from Arizona. In the same poll, Giuliani was neck-and-neck with McCain, with 28 percent supporting the former mayor.

What has Barack Obama done? He knows that, based on race, color or creed, not to mention a host of other demographic details, the race card is always available for counter-attack on anyone who expresses objections on an issue or proposes solutions that annoy the left. That’s right. If you have no substantive argument and therefore can only offer race card rebuttals, you are free to say whatever you want. Even if what you say is as racist as those you accuse of being that way.

On a radio program this morning, a talk show host and his guest were discussing this story. The question came up on why Obama is using this particular stand and why now? The guest answered that the left’s 43 year exploitation of civil rights issues as a manufactured wedge against the right is their standard approach. Use this emotional theme to gain support from those who feel ‘disenfranchised’. The left fringe including Hollywood celebrities and other guilt-laden rich employ public relations strategies of appearing concerned about the less fortunate to improve their status. Other less wealthy left-leaning ideologues find these false causes appealing to enhance their standing among certain groups.

The theory here would be that Obama realizes that his fears of losing a Presidential run were based on his lack of experience, any relevant history and only a weak campaign strategy of relying on his public speaking skills. He continues to worry about setting himself apart from other candidates without a convincing strategy or anything more than he has already presented. Obama knows he needs something more and he just doesn’t have it. This is real simple politics. So what do you do? Raise a fabricated issue and try to make it hot button. It must also be something only you can use. What better choice than the race card. Speak of Katrina, Rodney King and race riots.

The masks are coming off the Democratic candidates. Edwards is all about betting on trashing the troops as a winning strategy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about socialism and the impossible task of reinventing your deplorable personal history. And now Obama stoops low enough to use the race card as his central theme. The GOP may have their own demons to exorcise. But at least that possibility still exists. As a matter of fact, most voters can get a real sense of practical solutions and good old-fashioned American leadership in candidates like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The lack of realistic criticism for these candidates causes opponents to reach for imaginary problems as their weapons. Those attacks are easily dispatched.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama fears frustrations will lead blacks to violence

Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2007
HAMPTON, Va. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a “quiet riot” among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.