About Me

Name:Pasadena Phil
Email: gaptoothedcretin@sbcglobal.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Attention Nose-Holding Myrmidons! (Updated for Breaking News)




This was just too good to pass up so I'm interrupting my hiatus to share this gem. (Breaking news update below)


Photobucket


Update:  I can't believe it. Hillary was actually telling the truth about that Bosnia thing. Here is the CBS News video that proves it. I'm going to be sick.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (90) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

God's Away on Business (Updated)

To paraphrase Tom Waits: They sold our principles away for a buck.

"Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers"

With the mess we're in, there can be only one explanation: God's away on business.




I wasn't going to post anymore but I couldn't resist. This is exactly the way I feel about party politics these days. And I love Tom Waits.

Here are the lyrics for those of you who don't speak the King's back alley drunken English.

I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby
For a buck, for a buck
If you're looking for someone
To pull you out of that ditch
You're out of luck, you're out of luck

The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There's leak, there's leak,
In the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers

God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.

Digging up the dead with
A shovel and a pick
It's a job, it's a job
Bloody moon rising with
A plague and a flood
Jain the mob, jain the mob
It's all over, it's all over, it's all over
There's a lick, there's a lick,
In the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers
God's away, God's away, God's away
On Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
On Business. Business.

[Instrumental Break]  (go ahead, have a smoke- PPhil)

Goddamn ther's always such
A big temptation
To be good, To be good
There's always free cheddar in
A mousetrap, baby
It's a deal, it's a deal
God's away, God's away, God's away
On Business. Business.
God's away, God's away, God's away
On Business. Business.
I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby,
Let her ring, let her ring
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business.
Business...

UPDATE

Alright, I get it. Lots of people don't like Tom Waits. Well since we are slumming it, here's something a bit more palatable from another derelict. If she can survive her youth, Amy is going to be one of the great talents of her time.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (81) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The New "GOP for Liberal Dhimmis" Battleplan

Now that the corrupt GOP establishment has succeeded in allowing non-Republican voters to cram a Democratic party Trojan horse down our throats, we conservatives need to rethink our relationship with the Republican party. No one seriously believes that any Republican can win in November, no less McCain. So why am I happy?

Actually I'm more relieved than happy. I'm am going to enjoy the rest of this year, uncomplicated by the endless vapid arguments over "unity for the sake of the party" that are sure to dominate here at Townhall. I made up my mind long ago on how I would vote in this eventuality, way back when I first started blogging so you RINOs can "talk to the hand".  I have my Cuban cigar ready for the conservative victory in November. A conservative victory, not Republican. Stay with me.

As frustrating as is to watch our "conservative" media slowly surrender in dhimmitude to the liberal establishment, don't think for a moment that the conservative movement is dead or dying. This is just a long overdue and much needed weeding out process.

The UEP liberals are wasting no time in imposing their new political correctness requiring that conservatives always be described as extremists, bigots, absolutists, and so on. Interesting too how no one on Townhall's senior circuit is stepping up to defend Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or Ann Coulter. Hey I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

It's all part of a cascading collapse by people who have carved out careers for themselves as intermediaries between the assumed conservative leadership and conservative voters.
Townhall is populated mostly by political operatives who track polls and write blogs trying to gauge and steer public opinion for the benefit of their GOP masters. These are not "ideas" people, just operatives. Now fearing irrelevance in a world where conservatism is supposedly dead, rather than fight for the cause, they have also been surrendering to liberal dhimmitude.

Most of us have long been warning RINOs that the days of holding our noses while voting for "the lesser of two evils" are over. That the GOP chose to ignore these warnings even after we shut down the Senate over the McCain/Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill demonstrates an astonishingly self-destructive arrogance. That they would then nominate the very architect of that obnoxious piece of legislation is unforgivable. Having now bet the farm that we will ultimately "come to our senses" and vote for McCain, they have provided us with the first opening for a landmark conservative victory: let's not vote for McCain.

Our votes are irrelevant to the outcome and besides, the world will not come to an end if a Democrat wins anymore than in 1992 when many of us eschewed Bush to vote for Perot. Trust me, America will be fine. We are not faced with extinction. We've had much worse presidents than either of the two Democrats running.

In fact, if you think about it, the GOP elites have handed us an eye-popping opportunity to prove that conservatism is NOT dead. We can turn the entire process on its head. The path to victory is so simple and obvious, it makes me pause to wonder why it took me to point it out. (What is WRONG with you guys?)

Visualizing victory: the plan. Enjoy the next ten months. No need to agonize. It is not conservatives who are in trouble but the GOP. The conservative movement will only be dead when we say it is. If the pitched battles here at RINO-heaven Townhall are any indication, conservatism is alive and well. We just need to refocus. Here's how.

Re-register as an unaffiliated independent! And get your Republican friends to do so too. The GOP is already borderline as a "major" party and they have already told us that although they want our votes, they don't want us. "Shut up and vote!" Re-registering would accelerate the decline of GOP registrations and send a sobering chill up their spines (no comment). McCain will be hamstrung to raise money or even be taken seriously.

Get everyone you know who is not registered to register as an unaffiliated independent. We need to demonstrate that we still have the enthusiasm and influence to grow our ranks.

Vote! Don't stay home! We need to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans at getting out the vote. And don't buy into the "suicide" vote strategy. Vote for an independent candidate where it will count. This will dilute the UEP vote so that the winner fails to get anything close to a majority. No majority, no mandate. It would represent the most astounding reversal of fortunes in presidential politics in American history.

The MSM will be all over the story in trying to undermine McCain. Like always, they will have underestimated conservative voters and will be shocked when McCain comes in third. This would demonstrate that the conservative movement is stronger than ever, even stronger than when Reagan was president.


However, many conservatives are afflicted by a disturbing psychological disorder that prevents them from voting when they don't support the Republican candidate. It's as if they were being asked to commit some weird sexual perversion. Wake up and get over it! There is no law banning independent candidates from running nor voters from voting for them. We need to do exactly that in this election - for the conservative cause. There is only one way to break up a one-party system: make a mess of the electoral college by rallying in numbers behind a second party candidate.

George Washington and our other founding fathers faced a similar problem in the early years of the War of Independence. Most colonists just couldn't see themselves as anything other than Englishmen. They saw the war as a dispute between the colonial gentry and Mother England. Whatever the outcome, they expected that they would still be Englishmen. It took a Thomas Paine to find the words and arguments to bring the reality to life and persuade them to accept the struggle as their own as well. They soon embraced the concept of being Americans. Conservatives now need to stop thinking of themselves as Republicans and embrace being conservatives for its own sake.

There is also another odd similarity to the War of Independence. Just as 1776 began with King George declaring the American Colonies no longer being within the protection of the Crown, so too did conservatives find the GOP establishment declaring them to be no longer welcome in the party. As the colonists eventually embraced the concept of being Americans, so too must conservatives embrace the new reality and do what we have to do to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. We may not have a Thomas Paine to articulate our cause, but our principles are not "radical" or "extreme" or otherwise "out of the mainstream". They are as American as apple pie. In fact, we are the only ones left who are fighting for the sovereignty of America and its independence.

For now, victory will not be defined by winning national elections but by confounding both wings of the United Establishment Party in their efforts to silence us. Just as the RNC confounded the will of the Republican voters by running several spoilers against Mitt Romney, we must return the favor by voting for an independent Ron Paul.

Our two-party system was designed to produce elections that deliver clear mandates. That hasn't happened since 1988 and even then, Bush turned his back on that mandate. Were Obama or Hillary to win with 38% of the vote with McCain finishing third, we would have weakened both parties while creating the chaos we need to gain the traction we never had in the GOP. That, my friends, would be a major victory for conservatism. Will you do it?

There is no need for conservatives to feel despair. Winning is within our grasp. All we have to do is believe it and vote for the independent candidate. McCain is going to lose anyway. By not voting for him, we diminish the prestige of both wings of the UEP. Let's do it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (117) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Democrats Nominate the GOP Candidate Too?

Updated for news on Hollywood support shift. See bottom of page.


There are two important points I want to make about the Iowa caucus:

First, Republicans are already losing against Democrats in side-by-side races. Given a choice, independents are showing up in numbers to vote Democrat.

Second, there may not be enough Republicans remaining in the GOP to nominate their own candidate.

One of the big stories to come out of Iowa was the ginormous turnout. Most of the increase went to Democrats by far. Twice as many Democrats turned out to vote as Republicans. It is usually equal for both parties.

Also disturbing for the GOP was the enormous number of young voters who turned out to vote for Obama. Keep that in mind when contemplating a Giuliani, Thompson or ghostly McCain nomination.

Labor turned out to vote for Obama. This does not bode well for any Republican in the industrial states for the general election.

There are many more such statistics that all point to one thing: Obama is rapidly transforming this race on the Democratic side by re-invigorating the party with enthusiastic new voters and many of these new voters are young. Enthusiasm, turnout, youth and money. That's a grand slam.

That Huckabee defeated Romney in Iowa may be a big story in the small and shrinking pond of the GOP but the only enthusiasm on display was by evangelicals anxious to vote for one of their own to keep a Mormon from winning. From the Des Moines Register:

"Typically, as many as 45 percent of Republican caucusgoers are evangelicals, but Thursday night they were a mighty bloc with 60 percent, said Redlawsk, the University of Iowa professor. "A 15 percent bump up in that group, if they're all going Huckabee's way, makes all the difference."

The enthusiasm and energy in the Democratic race transcended the GOP's petty and personal squabbling and thus relegated the Republican race to irrelevancy. Republicans may very well be headed for a monumental loss in November. It is like watching the old, newly expanded NHL as the Western (expansion teams) and Eastern (old teams) divisions worked through the playoffs as if the Western champion had any chance in the Stanley Cup finals. Winning the East was winning the Stanley Cup. And so it may be in 2008 for the Democrats unless the Republicans rediscover their base and get their act together.

As John Hinderaker of Powerline, who has a rosier outlook,  warned last Friday,

"
Republicans are going to have to wake up from their slumber pretty soon if their candidate is to have a chance in November. Or maybe there just aren't enough Republicans these days to give the party much of a chance."

"Maybe there just aren't enough Republicans." That is a big, big issue. What we saw in Iowa and are now seeing in New Hampshire is that independents and Democrats might have more influence in determining who becomes the GOP nominee than Republicans themselves.

I expect see reports soon that Democratic party registrations are growing because of Obama. That was clearly in evidence in Iowa. In the last numbers I saw from the November 2006 election, Democrats accounted for about 30% of registered voters to the GOP's 25-26%. There is no evidence that GOP registrations have gone anywhere but down since then. I know that because were that not true, you can bet that the desperate RNC would be trumpeting it from sea to shining sea - and around the clock. They aren't.

That brings up another question. How many registered voters does a party need to be competitive nationally? The Democrats may be on their way back to 40% while the GOP sinks to 20% or lower. Keep that in mind the next time you read a poll querying GOP voters only. By
purging itself of its base of conservatives, the GOP might have tossed its ability as a major party to produce a winning candidate. Worse yet, in a primary system where most states allow independent and crossover voting, it is debatable that Republican voters can even select the candidate of their choice. If they can't, then who is doing the selecting?

New Hampshire may very well demonstrate that in a two-party system organized as it is, a party that outnumbers its opposition party by 2 to 1 has the power to select the nominees of both parties. Obama will get the lion's share of independents and maybe a larger-than-expected share of disaffected GOP moderates in New Hampshire next Tuesday. If the Democratic voter turnout again outnumbers the Republican turnout by a great margin, will the Republican winner even matter? We will once again end up with a liberal selected by Democrats and independents.

Come February 5, the third-party path might look very inviting for a well-funded independent candidate. Those who say that Hillary Clinton will eventually derail Obama are engaging in the same wishful thinking as those who argue that Giuliani will win once he gets to the Florida primary and then February 5. Risky strategy. Hillary may very well win New York, New Jersey and Florida but it is a big mistake to assume she will win California, Michigan, Ohio and many other states. The Hollywood crowd is rapidly moving into the Obama camp (see 1/8 update below)* and her early losses will probably seal that deal.

And so it is very likely that the Republican nominee will be facing Obama. "Old and cranky" is not going to beat "young and dynamic" Obama and there is no outflanking Obama to the left, even with Giuliani (think Bill Clinton), McCain (think Ted Kennedy) and Huckabee (think Jimmy Carter) as the nominee. It just doesn't look good for Republicans.

I don't believe that a party comprised of a fuzzy, unmotivated and bland 20-25% of registered voters can be considered a major party. It may be a liberating blessing for Romney to get knocked out early. He could quickly link up with a Duncan Hunter and declare his to be the only conservative ticket. And since 30-33% of registered voters describe themselves as "conservative" and another 25-28% as "moderate leaning conservative", I argue that this ticket would at least come in second, ahead of the Republican ticket. I believe they could actually win.

Huckabee won in Iowa and is not seeing any new money. McCain will probably win in New Hampshire but not see any new money either. The way things are going, the GOP nominee will get crushed in November for lack of ideas, enthusiasm, and money.
What else would you expect when the opposing party is picking your nominee? The Republican Party has been reduced to a meaningless label bereft of ideas and members.

In a two-party system, why is it that one party gets to field two candidates while the other party has none? Obviously, there is only one party,
the Unified Establishment Party. We need to find a conservative candidate willing to take on both UEP candidates by running independent. Right now, I don't see Romney getting knocked out nor running independent. Ron Paul might. I expect him to.

Admit it. Faced with the choice of uber-leftwing and inexperienced Obama, a certifiably nutty and liberal Huckabee, narcissistic liberals like McCain and Giuliani, wouldn't you vote for an independent Ron Paul? Even if he won, it would be harmless because the next president is likely to win with less than 38% of the vote and facing an even more conservative Congress. Controlling Congress is what matters and conservatives are in the driver's seat there.

It's the only way to beat a one-party system. Could happen. You never know.


*Updated 1/8/08:  Hollywood abandoning Hillary in droves to jump on the Obama train. There is nothing like this happening on the GOP side other than all the conservatives who abandoned ship over the amnesty fight. It just keeps getting worse. And latest results from New Hampshire are telling us that the independents think the Republicans should run McCain against Obama. I can't think of any reason why Republicans should be celebrating no matter who wins.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (187) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The BIGNESS of Big Oil

Let me state up front that I am not an expert on the science and technology of oil. But as an investment professional, I learned long ago that in a world where the biggest and most important things happen in full view, it is critical to develop a working knowledge of those big things for yourself. And nothing is bigger and more vitally important than oil and how we are inexplicably sleep walking into a crisis despite all of the warnings. The early stages of the economics of scarcity are now upon us. It is critical for otherwise rational people to stop talking foolishly on this subject. Most of the foolishness is rooted in a lack of appreciation for the vast amounts of oil the world currently consumes. This is an attempt to persuade you to accept the reality of the impending crisis by at least understanding its "bigness".

The complexity of this issue makes it very difficult to discuss within the limited confines of a blog. Throw in
hyper-political partisanship and it is nearly impossible. I can't think of another topic where possessing just a little information is more dangerous. While everyone seems to be operating on varying amounts of "facts", few have grasped the "bigness" of oil. Unable or unwilling to arrive at a fundamental understanding of the most important, and knowable, point, most then form radical opinions based on a world dominated by "evil" corporations conspiring with totalitarian governments to create an artificial "shortage" for their own wealth and power. Others blame environmentalists. Both represent intellectual laziness and I leave it to you to figure out why. The truth is in plain view. Don't be afraid to see what you see.

                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 1971, American oil production peaked and has been in decline ever since. We didn't run out of domestic oil, we began running out of cheap, domestic oil. Our demand kept growing as it overtook our production which went into decline. We started importing oil because foreign supplies were vastly bigger, of higher quality and could be produced in greater quantities at less cost.

Price control thus shifted away from the Texas Railroad Commission to OPEC, particularly to the largest producer, Saudi Arabia. The oil shocks of 1973-74 were mainly the result of OPEC grappling over control of pricing power. The end result was a long period of historically low and stable prices. There was no fear of running out of oil from one source because there was plenty more available from somewhere else and plenty of big capital available willing to invest in required infrastructure. Those "evil" corporations were conspiring with "evil" governments to deliver the most important commodity on earth to us as the cheapest liquid on earth. So when exactly did they become even more "evil"?

In 1971, just as today, most of the knowledge about the size and quality of oil reserves was held by private corporations and secretive governments. Nevertheless, in 1956, Shell Oil's chief geophysicist, Marion King Hubbert, defied his company's wishes and publicly predicted that the U.S. domestic production would peak in 1970. He was right. In 1976, he further predicted that global production would peak around 2000.
He didn't base his projections on science so much as on economics.

In 1971, there was no particular interest or need in having accurate estimates of the world's proven oil reserves. No one could see far enough to envision today's global economy. For various reasons, mainly the increasing vulnerability of the economies of the western world, getting a handle on this issue became important. In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey, fearful of Hubbert's forecast, commissioned an exhaustive five-year study to come up with estimates for how much oil existed in the beginning and how much remains. This is essential information for "big capital" whose main question can be restated as: "At what point do the economics of scarcity overtake the economics of abundance?" It is a simple formula of projecting the growth of demand into a depleting supply and estimating a mid-point. The numbers are big enough that they don't require pinpoint accuracy.

The USGS report is public information and we can study various books written by the best experts who have analyzed that information for us. But most importantly, we can observe what those secretive governments and "evil" corporations are doing and saying and form very reliable conclusions. So what are the best experts saying? Let's go through the questions.

How much oil is left and what does it mean? The USGS study concluded that there was a 95% probability that there was at least 2.1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil reserves on earth in the beginning and 50% probability that there were at least 2.7 trillion barrels. The oil industry had always used 2 trillion. The USGS decided to now go with 3 trillion barrels (go figure). The American Petroleum Institute decided on 2.1 trillion and Petro-Global 2.3 trillion. Peak oil economics begin when the market perceives that half of all oil reserves have been depleted. Hard to believe, but the differences in these estimates don't matter very much.

It will take about twenty years to implement proper mitigation measures (develop and adapt to alternatives) before peaking at the mid-point. The expert forecasts range from those who think we are already there or past the peak (T. Boone Pickens, Kenneth Deffeyes, Dr. David Goodstein of CalTech, and others) to the rosiest independent estimates of 2020 (Total and Wood McKenzie). All of those who project longer peaks, like OPEC (who rejects peak oil theory) and the major international oil companies, have a vested self-interest in mis-leading the public. Otherwise, they would be more forth-coming with actual information. Therefore, to the non-conflicted experts, we are already in deep trouble.

So what if we found more oil? Ah! That is the key to the whole thing! Keep in mind that all of the big oil fields were discovered more than 40 years ago using outdated technology. Yet despite today's advanced technology, no major discoveries since. Still, let's say they did find more oil. How much oil would it take to make a meaningful difference? If these yet undiscovered fields are so big, why haven't we been able to find them? You have to think on a planetary scale to grasp this. Let's assume that 1.8 trillion barrels remain in known global reserves (the consensus is about 1 trillion) and annual global demand grows at a constant 2% (it is higher than that currently). Peak production would occur in 2020. That is less than 12 years from now.  Were we to discover 900 billion barrels of new light sweet crude, which is more than 80% of the amount of oil the world has consumed from the beginning of time, it would merely extend the peak to around 2030, or 22 years from now. That is more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had. Keep in mind that the second biggest known reserves are in Kuwait and amount to 95 billion barrels. But let's assume that these new discoveries are going to happen. Even then, shouldn't we have started investing in proper mitigation strategies by now?

Here is a 2006 statement from J. B. Johnston of the prestigious Aspen Institute:

"It is not a question of what exists below the ground, but the adequacy of the investment environment above the ground and the progress made on demand reduction that will lead to wise choices. As access to resources increasingly is taken out of the control of market forces and placed under the control of governments and government-controlled entities, the ability to supply energy markets increasingly becomes a government decision rather than a market decision."

"Unfortunately, as government decisions often are swayed less by what is best for the market and consumers than by what is in the best interests of individual nations or political ideologies, the collective security of consumers and producers erodes and can fall prey to political whims and disruptive policies based on non-energy goals."

Please don't read that to mean government conspiracies. Governments did not manufacture an energy problem. We were going to have this problem eventually. Oil is a finite resource. But there IS a role for the government of a free capitalistic society to play and that is to create a friendlier, safer and less legally hostile environment for capital. If we expect investors with sufficient capital to invest in these very long-term and capital intensive
projects, it is unreasonable to ask them to do so without some protections from the capriciousness of self-serving politicians and lawyers.

This is not a manufactured problem that will go away even if every eco-fascist were jailed or if the so-called "global conspiracy of governments and evil corporations" were broken up. It is a real problem, we saw it coming and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can discuss it intelligently and find a solution. Until then, we are ALL part of the problem and are doomed to bounce from one crisis to the next. No one knows for sure how much time is left to act. Most top experts are very pessimistic and believe it may already be too late. In any case, we cannot afford to continue what we are doing. We should have been making the most of whatever time we have left a long time ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (137) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America's "B Team": The Grand Old Paupers (Updated)

This all started because the wise gentlemen of the elite Republican National Committee were in such a rush to pass the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (scamnesty) last summer. This triggered what would eventually become a major phenomenon when many of us took valuable time out of our busy schedules to overwhelm the Senate fax machines, telephones and e-mail boxes to the point that all Senate communications shut down during the discussions leading to the vote. The bill didn't pass. Despite this unprecedented expression of voter outrage, our Senators would later make other attempts while calling the 84% of Americans who oppose amnesty bigots, xenophobes, haters and worse. Is it any surprise that the entire Republican Party now finds itself unable to raise campaign money?

The National GOP now looks just like the  Massachusetts Republican Party I used to be involved with and the California Republican Party of today. A de-facto minority party serving only as a back door entrance for wealthy wannabes who can finance their own campaigns.

What kind of future can we expect for such a party? Can it even survive as a major party? For that matter, can a party that can only claim a shrinking 25% share of all registered voters even be considered a "major" party? Can it afford to continue backing a former New York City mayor who was elected as a member of the Liberal Party
as their candidate for president? A candidate whose only experience as a Republican was to run for Senator of New York against his most likely future opponent for President? A campaign he QUIT trailing in the polls? What is wrong with this picture?

Beats me.



11/27/07 11.52 pm PST) Update

Washington Post reports on the growing sense of doom within the GOP establishment. The question is: do these 23 quitters represent a defeat of the establishment? Will they be replaced by one of "us"? One step at a time. The message is being heard. Let's see what happens.


                              *******************************
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (223) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Paul: The Sword of Damocles?

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year should be familiar with my argument that our two-party system cannot survive much longer, at least not with these two parties. Combined registrations for both parties had already shrunk from 78% about ten years ago to 58% as of November 2004. That number is now lower but just try getting the real number.

Is it fair to say, as I have been arguing, that in a "two-party" system, the Republicans' 25.7% share no longer qualifies for "major party" status? Is the Democrats' 32% that much better when more than two-thirds of all voters are not members of the leading party? Headed into an election year where both parties seem on a path to nominate two very unpopular liberal clones by February 5, is it also fair to say that the opportunity is now at hand where one of these failing and non-representive parties will be knocked out?

To start this election campaign so early has proven to be a big mistake. Nothing has been accomplished but to demonstrate how rigid and "bought" both parties are. It was also a mistake to bunch up the primaries so close together. Not only did it compel some states to re-schedule earlier, it has created a nine-month window for independent candidates to wage viable populist campaigns to attract the vast pool of disenfranchised voters. Nine months is an eternity.

Not that I believe any of these candidates could win, but all it would take would be for a Ron Paul to garner 15 to 20% and a couple of others like McCain/Lieberman (5-10%) and Hunter (5-10%) and suddenly we are looking at the winner having to split 65-75% of the vote. Having either Hillary or Rudy winning a close race with 38% of the vote or less would mean that they won an election where two-thirds or more of all voters voted against them. That is not the result a two-party system is supposed to produce. In a parliamentarian system, you get a run-off election. Here, you get a lame duck. It would represent an utter systemic failure brought about by the usurpation of the process by special-interest globalist money.

As kooky as that scenario may have sounded a year ago when McCain was the prohibitive favorite, amnesty was a done deal and the Iraq war was hopelessly lost, that very scenario is now taking shape. Today, Matt Towery makes a compelling case in his column "The Ron Paul Factor" for how Paul might influence the outcome. No, Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee. I never thought his campaign for the GOP nomination was anything but a prelude to staging an independent run by gaining name recognition and momentum. Ross Perot had a standing start in 1992 and garnered 19% of the vote. With a running start and against such unpopular opponents, why couldn't Ron Paul at least match Perot's 19%? People were not as fed up in 1992 as they are today.

In the absence of strong favorites, what is going to stop other viable independent candidates from running? If you think you are sick of Hillary and Rudy already, just think how sick you'll be of them after February 5th and staring at the prospect of another nine months of these guys. Nine months is an eternity for a Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter to stage credible campaigns against such distasteful and flawed opponents.

Get ready for it. It's going to be a wild year in 2008. We may be headed for an electoral college crisis followed by Congress determining who the lame duck president will be for the next four years. Could the end be at hand for one of these "major" parties? I hope so. We desperately need a second party.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (153) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy's Rich and Powerful Friends

Just posted on Drudge this morning. Ruppert pressured Regan to protect Rudy? Exactly how dirty IS Rudy? So now we know. Ruppert Murdoch loves Hillary AND Rudy!  Why would the big money support both? Oh... I don't know... In racing they call it boxing your bet.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (102) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politics and Blogs: The World That Doesn't Work

Yesterday, I posted a travelogue covering my first day at Blogworld. I reported how most major corporations have learned to embrace the blogosphere as an example of how things are done in "the world that works". Today, I will discuss how the government, political organizations and to a large extent, political blogs operate as examples of how things are done in "the world that doesn't work".

My final workshop was a panel discussion on Friday afternoon moderated by Professor David Perlmutter. The panel consisted of John Hinderaker of Powerline, Mary Katherine Ham of Townhall and Fox News, Taylor Marsh of Huffington Post, stand-up comedian and liberal blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog and someone named Natasha who was not listed anywhere so I can't give you her last name. This session was sparsely attended which I suspect was because this was the third politically-oriented workshop in a row and attendees were probably exhausted from the first two. Very understandable.

The topic of discussion listed was "Political Blogs and the Political Press: From Antagonists to Co-Players?" Never got around to it. Certain participants were determined to talk about something else. Right out of the gate, the topic was cast aside. The first two to comment, Brad Friedman and Taylor Marsh, simply declared that the liberal blogs were "winning". Ms Marsh then offered one incoherent comment after another. I took plenty of notes but the discussion was so incoherent and rambling that it was often hard to determine what exactly was being discussed.

The workshop was useful nevertheless because of how it provided a demonstration for what is wrong in the liberal journalistic world. The contrast between conservative bloggers (Ham and Hinderaker) and liberal bloggers (Marsh, Friedman and Natasha) could not have been more pronounced. The liberals were paranoid and emotionally contentious while the conservatives tried to focus on particular issues while being constantly interrupted and talked over.

For instance, at one point, John Hinderaker offered his objection to modern journalism's refusal to separate commentary from reporting. Reporters should be pounding the pavement in pursuit of the facts while leaving commentary to editorial staff and columnists. Very simple concept that used to be the standard operating procedure. It should have brought some structure to the discussion but the next speaker, Ms Marsh, just ignored it and went to the next talking point on her list.

She expressed her frustration in efforts to organize liberal media likening it to herding cats. "I wonder why?" I thought to myself. "They certainly seem organized and focused during panel discussions."

This would have been a good time for someone to bring up Rathergate and how Little Green Footballs and Powerline had toppled Dan Rather by exposing his ridiculous "fake but accurate" standard of journalism. I was hoping to hear that the MSM had learned from that experience and, like the corporations living in the world that works on the exhibit floor outside, had learned to embrace the new medium as a new listening tool. Dream on.

Why that has not happened was abundantly demonstrated at this workshop. Blogs like Powerline and Townhall are not afraid to follow the fact trail and reserve judgment until enough facts are in. Powerline's astonishing role in bringing down Dan Rather should now be the standard model at all serious news organizations. They had demonstrated how powerful facts can be even against a powerhouse like a CBS supported by their sympathetic friends in the MSM. Powerline demonstrated that the blogosphere was the best way to assemble the best experts on any specific problem by just sending out an APB. There are a lot of experts in the world but in the old world, they are hard to find. In the blogosphere, they find you and can often present indisputable proof in establishing relevant facts.

If the pursuit of truth is the cornerstone to good journalism, you would think professional journalists would find the Powerline model invaluable. They don't. Apparently, truth stands in the way of agenda journalism. Everyone has a separate agenda requiring a separate set of facts.

There is no way to present the actual discussion in a logical and flowing manner because there was no real discussion, just liberal talking points stomping on probing questions from Ms Ham and disconnected rebuttals to points from Mr. Hinderaker. Here are a few highlights.

Mr. Friedman: Fixated on his opinion (presented as fact) that although liberal bloggers are obviously "winning", they are disadvantaged because conservative bloggers like Powerline and Townhall have more "corporate" structure. I was to learn that he likes to put "corporate" in front of everything as a pejorative. "Corporate" MSM. "Corporate" structure. Apparently, Townhall and Powerline are succeeding only because they are backed by big "corporate" money. Ms Ham and Mr. Hinderaker made it clear that they are not backed by corporate money. In fact, it is lefty bloggers like Daily Kos and much of the liberal blogosphere that is financed by multi-billionaire investor George Soros. There is no one like that on the conservative side. Ms Ham presented the best response by asking Ms Marsh why the left doesn't simply copy Townhall or Powerline for themselves? Brain cramps. System overload. Too much logic. Let's change the subject.

Ms Marsh: preoccupied with a paranoid vision of a world dominated by hostile conservatives everywhere. There just aren't many liberals left in the MSM. Yes, she actually said that. She even offered the astonishing claim that every network news outlet and major newspaper, naming the Washington Post specifically, are "corporate" conservative news outlets. At this point, a large bearded man with longish tussled hair and wearing blue jeans stomped out of the room in disgust. Any hopes of having a rational discussion were gone. Hard to believe that she is a professional. Hard to believe she's employed.

Here is what this tells me. Journalism is now split into two branches: one that is essentially fact-based, and one that is purely agenda-based. The fact-based media consists of talk radio, cable television and the most influential blogs. The agenda-based media consists of most major newspapers, network television and a handful of popular but dubiously influential fringe blogs. The fact-based media is in the ascendancy in terms of viewership and influence whereas the agenda-based media is in decline. What does that tell us? Credibility works in "the world that works".

Americans are not so stupid as to accept agenda-driven information as fact. Knowing that they are being lied to, the audience is not interested. When Dan Rather went down, it wasn't because right-wing facts crowded out left-wing facts. It was because the facts undermined the official story. Facts are facts. No one likes being lied to. I am sure the liberals were just as upset with the lies and deceit as conservatives. No one intentionally lives in a world of lies. Although people generally want to hear what they want to hear, they also want to believe that it is the truth. Trust is difficult to attain and easy to lose and almost impossible to win back once lost.

This discussion should have been about what the MSM had learned about the new media and what it was doing to exploit it to improve their pursuit of the truth. That they are not interested in the new media, other than in learning how to discredit and undermine a media they fear, suggests that they are not interested in truth. Their world is not working and they refuse to believe that they are responsible.

In the world that works, corporations are learning to embrace the new media that was fragmenting their once organized worlds. They have taken the same media that was once conspiring to take them down and learned how to use it as a powerful listening tool. By listening, they discovered what was happening (the truth) and devised truth-based strategies. In the business world, knowledge is invaluable.

You could say that journalism is the ultimate truth-based industry and so its customers have a heightened expectation that what they publish is truth. The Marshes and Friedman's of the industry are clearly not interested in truth and facts. Even among themselves they can't form a consensus about what are the facts. We were taught never to argue facts growing up. Facts are facts and you can't argue away a proven truth. A healthy respect of facts would go a long way to curing what ails government, politicians and the MSM. It makes no difference that we speak the same language if we are always arguing from different sets of facts. Might as well be speaking gibberish in various languages at once.

As I often explain to friends, it doesn't bother me that their opinions differ from mine. So long as we are all in pursuit of truth, we will all end up at the same place eventually. That is why the blogosphere isn't working for liberals. If it doesn't work in the real world, it won't work in the virtual world. Welcome to the world that doesn't work. Let's get out of here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As a footnote for my regular visitors. I did introduce myself to John Hinderaker and Mary Katherine Ham and was pleasantly surprised when John recognized my name from my periodic commentary at Powerline. I really wasn't expecting a "Hey! Pasadena Phil!".  MKH didn't recognize my name but was very charming. She is the real deal. In fact, I was very impressed by the camaraderie and good natured "esprit de corps" that I observed at Townhall. Either everyone rose to a special occasion to be at their best behavior or more likely, they are just good and talented people who love what they do and enjoy the whole thing, from interviewing VIPs to talking to webeloes like me. It was a real treat to have had a chance to introduce myself and been made to feel welcome. I am glad I went. I now feel much better about where the world is going because I have seen where the world that works is taking us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (39) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blogworld: "You Also Have The Right To Listen"

I almost backed out of going to Blogworld at the last minute but the Hard Rock Hotel demands a 72-hour notice to cancel so thank God for my inner Jack Benny. It didn't help either that the Dow toppled almost 400 points on my drive over, another 100+ points on Thursday and another 200 points Friday. Add to that my room number being 911, a very auspicious start. But skipping Blogworld would have been a very big mistake.

My primary reasons for going were professional.
I wanted to meet and talk with people who know how the blogosphere works and can help me learn how build a new business platform. I was floored by what I discovered.

Upon entering the auditorium, one couldn't help but to be affected by the boundless enthusiasm everywhere. It was like an arctic blast of fresh air in contrast to the "doom and gloom" angst weighing heavily on the world outside. These were not people bemoaning the passing of a mythical golden age and fearing the future. Nope. No time for that. Too busy living the future and building a world most of us know little about but will soon find indispensable. If capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone, this was capitalism at its best.

My first major observation was the stark contrast between
how corporate America has responded to the challenges and opportunities presented by the new media as opposed to how the government responded. Or as Newt Gingrich would put it, how "the world that works" responded versus "the world that doesn't work". Today, I report on the world that works and how I discovered the way it will work for me soon. The world of darkness where nothing works can wait for tomorrow.

In the world that works, corporations were quickly subjected to the subversive nature of the web. Ten years ago, in her book "Release 2.0: A Design for Living in the Digital Age", Esther Dyson predicted that organizations would have to develop strategies to protect their brands and reputations in the virtual world in ways that don't work in the real world. She was right and they have. After initially suffering significant fragmentation of their markets and advertising media outlets, they turned the threat on its head. They surrendered to the medium and turned it into a listening platform
. By enthusiastically plowing headlong into this new world, they are salvaging what they can from their broken business models and developing new ones more appropriate to the new world. While most bloggers are using the new media to be heard, corporations have discovered the power of listening.

The government, on the other hand, cannot get beyond the threat
blogs pose to their power and have indulged in their usual instincts to try undermining that which they cannot control. They simply refuse to surrender in a battle they have already lost. They are NOT listening and that will be tomorrow's theme when I discuss the world that doesn't work. Now back to my tour.


I didn't know it but I was about to have one of my most productive days in a very long time, a day made up of one fascinating conversation after another with many of the smartest people in the business. By the end of the morning, even before attending my first workshop, my mind was spinning with new ideas to digest for building a new business model.

Thursday opened with a keynote session featuring Matt Mullenweg,  founder of Wordpress, who regaled us with the story of his company while being interviewed by Fast Company's Ed Sussman. During the introductions, Dave Taylor asked for a show of hands on how many attendees were sent there by corporations as professional bloggers and then how many, like me, were individual bloggers. The corporate bloggers easily outnumbered us by at least two-to-one. I was surprised but immediately grasped its significance. The blogosphere was not about me but about corporations. Might as well kill myself. Maybe not, makes a bad first impression.

The history of Wordpress was fascinating but I especially appreciated Matt's observation that most bloggers are too focused on telling people what they think when they should be asking others what they think. The blogosphere is populated mostly by people who want to be heard. Apparently, we are all ruling over our own private echo chambers. Blogs like this one might be doomed.


I next sauntered Fred Thompson-like to the entrance of the exhibit area where Townhall's exhibit dominated. I was greeted by the hard-working but woefully underpaid Katie Favazza who inexplicably tasered me like a bro while summoning security to drag out my twitching corpse.  Alright, alright I'm lying about the taser and security part but that's the way it's going down in the movie version. Senseless violence sells. Case closed. Anyway, Katie was very patient with my mindless chatter as I studied the exhibit which was set up as an impromptu radio studio with a few seats for a small audience. I probably deserved to be tased.

It was still early. Few visitors had arrived so I was able to talk to people while they were still fresh, available and chirpy. I spent the next two hours or so questioning and listening to very smart and accomplished people who enthusiastically offered solutions and advice while doing their best to explain to me exactly what they do. For example.

Several companies were there to promote various blog traffic tracking services. Companies like SezWho that specialize in evaluating and prioritizing commenters' credibility and Visible Technologies that take a statistical approach by tracking visitors' as they navigate site-to-site and performing factor analysis to reveal important factors for further analysis. Same old-fashioned marketing segmentation tool but new media requiring different data sampling. Very interesting but not yet useful in its current early development stage to my social-networking-oriented target marketing interests. I moved on.

After talking to several people, I discovered that major corporations were the primary customers for most of these companies. I was already humble from having low traffic but I wasn't prepared to discover that I hardly matter in their world.
I had misread the importance of blogging and Blogworld itself. Blogworld was mostly about helping corporations build new business models while finding their way out of their fragmented and shattered markets. How did I miss that?

Corporations have also discovered the value of attracting customer complaints to their own sites. Customers are going to complain anyway so it might as well be at the company blog. It enhances the corporate brand when the world sees problems being acknowledged and addressed in public in real time. Large corporations have rediscovered the old shop owner's adage that it's the unsatisfied customer who walks out without complaining and never returns who puts you out of business. It pays to say thank you to people who do tell you why they aren't happy with your product.

Corporations are also interested in protecting their images by tracking what their competitors are saying about them online. There were all kinds of services that can analyze blog traffic for any references to a company, its product or its services. Did you notice the listening thing again? As Yogi once said, "You can hear a lot by just listening."

Several exhibitors offered various ways to direct traffic to blogs based on listing services like www.blogcatalog.com where bloggers can connect with each other to form specialized networks. The web is a very cluttered space full of countless specialty markets that are hard to discover. And there are no maps and few practical directories. The main idea is to make yourself easy to find by creating branded networks and then, like Leo LaPorte says, becoming the "hub of the tail". I'm not going to bore you with that. At least not until I figure it out for myself. Then I'll bore you to no end with it.

Others firms,
Outerjoin for instance, offered beginning-to-end consulting services to help business people set up professional blogs. Very reasonable. They may be hearing from me in the not-too-distant future.

But if there was one conversation that stood out that morning, it was the one I had with Steven Van Yoder, author of "Get Slightly Famous". I didn't know at the time that I was speaking to the author himself nor that I had registered for his session that afternoon. His suggestions were directly applicable to what I was trying to do. I will be using them. My main interest was in learning how to establish credibility within a very narrow target market in a business dependent on a high degree of two-way personal trust. His general strategy wasn't necessarily new to me but I didn't know how to go about it. Now I do. And there is something subtly helpful in thinking about it as "getting slightly famous".

Having already accomplished most of what I had set out to accomplish, all that remained was to find people who could address certain particular components of the plan. One was to figure out how to use my blog to get articles published. Another was how to write a book and get it published. Steven Van Yoder was very helpful on the research methodology and how to use the end result but not on the writing part. I'm not a bad writer but writing an effective book specifically designed to establish my credibility with important prospects requires help from a writing coach.

Ann McIndoo who specializes in a service she calls "author's boot camp" impressed me. Assuming you have a passion, she promises to have a book manuscript ready in three days. I realize it sounds like a hustle but if she is selective on projects she takes on, it makes sense. As with most things in life, what you get out of it is only as good what you put into it. But having a good coach guiding you can be the difference between success and failure even with the best idea. I have a feeling we will be talking again.

It was now time for the workshop sessions and they were all excellent. I attended Steven Van Yoder's "Building Your Online Reputation" and Larry Schwartz' "Syndicating Your Blog for Profit". End of work day. I was now free to have fun.

Bored with sauntering, I ambled instead to Townhall where the Hugh Hewitt Show was already in progress and introduced myself around. Met milblogger Eric Egland, Dean Barnett,  Duane Patterson, LaShawn Barber, and finally Hugh himself who greeted me with an enthusiastic "Hey! Pasadena Phil! One of the good guys!" It went straight to my head! Someone should have slapped me right on the spot. But what a relief! Especially after that tasering incident with