Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 02, 2015, 01:44:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85538 Posts in 2267 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

 on: March 29, 2015, 01:28:21 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
While we are remembering Hillary, remember her task force.  George Will said, think of a room full of Grubers.  They had all the secrecy they later accused Cheney's energy task force of.  The public hated the plan.  Dems lost Congress because of it, and Hillary was banned from policy assignments be her own husband.  Now she runs on her record?!  She led and they created a bureaucratic flow chart where people  in a hundred agencies, believed to be smarter than all of us combined making individual choices, make our decisions for us.  A version of this is now called Obamacare.

 on: March 29, 2015, 01:14:34 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
I should add that Bill doesn't have the political skills of the Bill that we remember anymore either.

George Will piles on and remember his Washington Post columns extend out further than what right wing sites can reach.  He politely concludes with "voters will make an informed choice".  

When she announces she isn't running (and leaves the scene gracefully) we can finally let all this Clinton ugliness rest.  George Will is kind to say Bill looks grandfatherly.  The photo with it makes him look great-grandfatherly.

An abscess of anger seems to gnaw at Hillary Clinton, but the reasons for her resentments remain unclear. The world’s oldest party, which governed the nation during two world wars and is the primary architect of America’s regulatory and redistributive state, is eager to give her its presidential nomination, in recognition of . . . what?

The party, adrift in identity politics, clings, as shipwrecked sailors do to floating debris, to this odd feminist heroine. Wafted into the upper reaches of American politics by stolid participation in her eventful marriage to a serial philanderer, her performance in governance has been defined by three failures.

Her husband, having assured the 1992 electorate that voting for him meant getting “two for the price of one,” entrusted to her the project that he, in a harbinger of the next Democratic president’s mistake, made his immediate priority — health-care reform. Then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) urged him to begin with welfare reform, just as wise Democrats wanted President Obama to devote 2009 to economic recovery rather than health care, perhaps sparing the nation six years and counting of economic sluggishness.

Hillary Clinton enveloped her health-care deliberations in secrecy, assembling behind closed doors battalions of the best and the brightest — think of many Jonathan Grubers weaving complexities for the good of, but beyond the comprehension of, the public. When their handiwork was unveiled, it was so baroque that neither house of a Congress controlled by her party would even vote on it. This was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years — a harbinger of 2010, when Obamacare helped end Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as the first female speaker.

Clinton’s Senate interlude was an uneventful prelude to her 2008 presidential quest, which earned her, as a consolation prize, the State Department. There her tenure was defined by the “reset” with Russia and by regime-change-by-bombers in Libya.

Russia has responded by violently dismembering a European nation. Libya was the object of “humanitarian intervention,” an echo of Bill Clinton’s engagement in the Balkans that appealed to progressives because it was connected only tenuously, if at all, to U.S. national interests. Today, Libya is a humanitarian calamity, a failed state convulsed by civil war and exporting jihadists.

These episodes supposedly recommend a re-immersion in Clintonism, a phenomenon that in 2001 moved The Post to say, more in anger than in sorrow, that “the Clintons’ defining characteristic” is that “they have no capacity for embarrassment.” This judgment was rendered as two episodes were demonstrating that the Clintons in power were defined by their manner of leaving it.

Bill Clinton punctuated his presidency by pardoning the late Marc Rich, a fugitive who 17 years earlier had been indicted for tax evasion, fraud and racketeering. Rich also traded with Libya and South Africa in contravention of embargos and traded with Iran during the hostage crisis. His former wife reportedly contributed more than $1 million to assorted Democratic causes, $450,000 for Clinton’s presidential library and $10,000 to the legal defense fund necessitated by Clinton’s glandular life that led to the Supreme Court effectively disbarring him from practicing before it.

A year before the Clintons decamped from Washington to begin planning their return to it, they began trucking away from the White House $190,000 worth of furnishings. Perhaps exigencies dictated this; the couple was, Hillary Clinton says, “dead broke.” The furnishings became, as things often do with the Clintons, another occasion for an “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” tiptoe along the ledge of illegality. The White House chief usher thought many of the items were government property donated in 1993 to a redecoration project. Several donors of items said they were told this. Although the Clintons said that all the removed furnishings were personal gifts, they returned $28,000 worth of them.

As Hillary Clinton begins her campaign to again reside with the White House furnishings, remember an episode perhaps pertinent to the family penchant for secrecy and to her personal e-mail server. Sandy Berger, who had been President Clinton’s national security adviser, was his designated representative to the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks that occurred less than nine months after Clinton left office. While representing Clinton, Berger frequented the National Archives. Later, he was fined $50,000 for surreptitiously taking highly classified documents from the Archives and destroying some of them.

Another Clinton presidency probably would include a reprise of the couple’s well-known patterns of behavior. Voters will make an informed choice.

 on: March 29, 2015, 01:00:29 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server?  [Yes.]
Friday was the deadline for Hillary Clinton to respond to a congressional subpoena for emails and documents related to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. She provided nothing since her email server had been wiped clean.

Her server is not the only place where her emails resided.  Deletion alone doesn't destroy all the information.  The steps they took to go further than that like demagnetization or dropping it into the Hudson River in the middle of the night are bound to look bad politically.  I share ccp's concern,  but don't believe this goes away just because she is a Clinton.  I saw one of her hacks on Meet the depressed tell us to move on and talk about issues that are important, but I did not see even the mainstreamers buying it.

If we are being outsmarted here by the Clintons, it can only be that they manufactured this scandal intentionally to distract from larger ones still hidden. 

This is only one of her problems.  She lacks the political skills of Bill, Barack, Reagan, Rubio, etc.    Her policies don't work.  She lacks separation from Obama.  They hid their records and stole from the White House last time they were leaving.  We still don't know what Bill was doing on Pedaphilia Island or where Hillary was help was not sent to Benghazi.  She has resume, but lacks accomplishments.   Not just as Secretary of State, but her policy debut as First Lady, and her experience when they took majority in the Senate.  Everything they did made things worse.  Her Russian reset didn't work.  Her Libyan overthrow didn't work.  Her economic ideas failed.  Her health care debut blew up.  Even the commodities straddles remain unanswered.   She won't be able to say anything like the most transparent administration ever is coming without even her own supporters breaking out in laughter.  Not exactly a dream come true for America in 2016.

All she can honestly is what an aide said about them, they lie with such ease.

 on: March 29, 2015, 12:27:11 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Interesting picture of two different time frames.  I would like to see this updated.

This only counts inflows, outflows from states.  Midwesterners and northeasterners came to California.  Illegals are leaving?

 on: March 29, 2015, 12:17:16 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Of course they are comparing them with the lowest level of male workforce participation in our history.  For women, the opposite is true.  Our social spending complex is working to break up these families next.

Meanwhile Democrats are working hard to get fewer of these people to work and more of them to vote.

 on: March 29, 2015, 12:04:05 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
(Is there no political thread yet for water issues?  It's all science, culture and humanities?)

From where I write, we are immersed in water.  But from where you read this, the drought may be catastrophic.  In the drought areas, people ask why we live where it is so cold for so much of the year.  We ask that too!  The history of it comes back to water.  Living near water was as obvious as living near air would be if air wasn't everywhere. In our case, the Mississippi and other rivers flow through a land with 12,000 lakes.  One of them has 3 quadrillion gallons.  Besides water all around, it comes from above regularly and is easily accessible from below. 

OTOH, we pay dearly for the accommodations we make to cope with cold, natural gas heat, indoor sports, indoor skyway system, plowing budgets, salt on the roads, rust on the cars, and on and on. 

Water is not a consumed resource, of course, it is only rented.  It is used, moved around and disposed back into the water system.  We don't pay for water, we pay for water treatment and the cost to move it around.  My water bill is 90% taxes, but that is another matter.

Now back to the drought regions with pressing water issues, why are we so anti-economic about letting people pay for the real cost of their water usage?  The more crucial the product or service, witness housing, food, education, health care, the more we turn to socialism as the failed system for allocating the scarce resource.

The author below argues that we don't need a special domain of economic thought for water issues.  Let prices float with supply and demand and watch suppliers and consumers of the resource adjust accordingly.

"The failure to charge market prices for water leads to shortages, and then to all the bullying about water usage. How much better would it be were we to give up on politicizing water rationing, and, instead, ration by price. Using the costs associated with prices on open markets as the guidance for conservation."


 on: March 29, 2015, 11:13:24 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
The award might be satire, but the rest is factual.

 on: March 28, 2015, 08:42:37 PM 
Started by buzwardo - Last post by Body-by-Guinness

 on: March 28, 2015, 06:06:44 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp

 on: March 28, 2015, 03:28:16 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
CK made some remark like that and the warning is fair, we should be careful to pick someone ready for the job.  But those with the longest, widest and deepest experience (Kasich?) are not necessarily best for the job either. 

The column I was teeing off on was this one at the Federalist (Cruz thread):

Charles redeems himself here I think.  This is a first look at what he thinks will happen.  He is right that Cruz is a long shot, may break out - especially in the debate setting.  He pick Rubio first, also a first termer and also a long shot at this point.

The GOP racing form: First edition
By Charles Krauthammer  March 27

With Ted Cruz announcing and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio soon to follow, it’s time to start handicapping the horses and making enemies.

No point in wasting time on the Democratic field. There is none. The only thing that can stop Hillary Clinton is an act of God, and He seems otherwise occupied. As does Elizabeth Warren, the only Democrat who could conceivably defeat her.

On to the GOP.

First Tier

1. Marco Rubio. Trails badly in current polls, ranking seventh at 5 percent, but high upside potential.

Assets: Foreign policy looms uncharacteristically large in this election cycle, and Rubio is the most knowledgeable and fluent current contender on everything from Russia to Cuba to the Middle East. The son of Cuban immigrants, he can break into flawless Spanish (so can Jeb Bush) and speak passionately about the American story in a party that lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points in 2012.

Liabilities (in the primaries): His Gang of Eight immigration apostasy, though his current enforcement-first position has wide appeal. Second, after Barack Obama, will voters want another first-term senator with no executive experience? (Same for Cruz and Paul.)

Major appeal: Fresh, young, dynamic persona is a powerful counterpoint to Clinton fatigue.

Goes out at 3-1.

2. Jeb Bush. The consensus favorite (though I remain a bit skeptical). Solid, soft-spoken, serious, with executive experience and significant achievements as governor. What he lacks in passion, he makes up for in substance. And he has shown backbone in sticking to his semi-heretical positions on immigration and Common Core.

Obvious liability: His name. True, it helps him raise tens of millions of dollars, but it saddles him with legacy and dynastic issues that negate the inherent GOP advantage of running a new vs. old, not-again campaign against Hillary.

Odds: 7-2.

Cruz announces 2016 run for president(2:07)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced his intention to run for president in the 2016 election during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. (AP)
3. Scott Walker. A fine record of conservative achievement. Has shown guts and leadership in taking on labor unions and winning three elections (five if you count proxy elections) against highly energized Democrats.

Good, rousing speech in Iowa, but has stumbled since, flubbing routine questions on evolution and patriotism, then appearing to compare the Islamic State to Wisconsin demonstrators. Rookie mistakes, easily forgotten — if he learns from them.

Pandered on ethanol and fired a staffer who complained about Iowa’s unwarranted influence. Sure, everyone panders to Iowa, but Walker’s calling card is standing up to pressure.

Most encouraging sign: ability to maintain altitude after meteoric rise. Numbers remain steady. And his speeches continue to impress.

Odds: 4-1.

Second Tier

4. Chris Christie. Some politicians have their one moment. Christie might have missed his in 2012 when his fearless in-your-face persona was refreshingly new. Over time, however, in-your-face can wear badly. That plus Bridgegate cost him traction and dropped him out of the first tier. Biggest problem: being boxed out ideologically and financially by Jeb Bush for the relatively-moderate-governor-with-cross-aisle-appeal slot. 12-1.

5. Ted Cruz. Grand, florid campaign launch with matching rhetoric. Straightforward base-oriented campaign. Has developed a solid following. Could break out, especially in debate. 15-1.

6. Mike Huckabee. Great name recognition, affable, popular. But highly identified with social/cultural issues — how far can that carry him beyond Iowa and evangelicals? 15-1.

7. Rand Paul. Events have conspired against him. Obama’s setbacks and humiliations abroad have created a national mood less conducive to Paul’s non-interventionism. His nearly 13-hour ­anti-drone filibuster would not fly today. Is trying to tack back, even signing the anti-Iran-deal letter of the 47 senators. Strong youth appeal, though outreach to minorities less successful thus far. Bottom line: High floor of devoted libertarians; low ceiling in today’s climate. 30-1.

Longer Shots

8. Carly Fiorina. Getting her footing. Given current societal taboos, she is best placed to attack Hillary and has done so effectively. Can she do a Huckabee 2008 and, through debates, vault to the first tier? Unlikely. But because she’s talented and disciplined, not impossible. 50-1.

9. Ben Carson. Polling high, but is a novice making cringe-worthy gaffes, for example, on the origins of Islam and on gay choice (“a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay”). And not knowing that the Baltic states are in NATO. Truly good man, brilliant doctor, great patriot. But not ready for the big leagues. Chance of winning? Zero.


Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and John Kasich — still below radar. If they surface, they’ll be featured in the next racing form

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!