This Guy Needs to Leave . . . Now!

Below are some quotes about Gov. Sanford and his dalliances (there was apparently more than one woman) . . . the parentheticals are my edits. . .


During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he's trying to fall back in love with his wife. (TIP . . . you better hope Mrs. Sanford doesn't read that one.)

He says that during the other encounters (he said he met other women, but never had "sexual relations" with them . . . gosh, that sounds familiar . . . now, where have I heard that before????) he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail. (I doubt that Bill Clinton will offer up any advice to this guy, who voted to impeach him.)

Au Contraire, Mon Ami . . . it is not I who is cynical

It is our beloved President who is the cynical one. If he were not so cynical, he would have come out on Iran the same way he did on Honduras, which is to say, with conviction. Many world leaders did that, including the somewhat more timid Europeans. But, we lagged behind, cautiously waiting to see which way the tear gas blew.

And yet, when the coup occurs in the Banana Republic of Honduras, there is an immediate reaction, as if the world will forget our non-reaction to the Iranian Government shooting its own citizens for peacefully demonstrating.

THAT is cynicism. I am just observing the pattern.

Another Comment from Follower

U r soooo cynical

Comment from Follower

One other small difference. In Iran, there was at least the illusion of a vote, and responsible governance suggested that just maybe, we need to give the grand puba enough time to figure out the right response on its own. Military cou’s on the other hand are cut and dried. Of course, the fact the we are talking about Honduras does make it much easier.

Righteous indignation . . . about Honduras?

Our President has decided to step up his global leadership by taking a new tact on issues of democracy by lambasting the Honduran military for "illegally" ousting the democratically elected President of Honduras. President Obama must have felt the stinging rebuke he took from around the World about his lack of leadership on Iran (yeah, yeah, we know it was strategic non-leadership, but it was non-leadership, nonetheless) and he decided not to make the same mistake again! He came out forcefully and with no hesitancy about Honduras.

Of course . . . the stakes are much lower in Honduras than they are in the volatile Middle East. And, Honduras has no nuclear program and no ballistic missile capabilities. And, only 7 million inhabitants (as compared to Iran's 65 million). And, Honduras has no oil and no ability to block the Straits of Hormuz, of course.

So, it was a slightly (i.e. much) easier call, politically, to come out against the Honduran military, although it might not be the right call from what is being written about the guy they ousted. Apparently, the Honduran military acted at the request of the Honduras Supreme Court because the ex-President didn't like doing things like following laws and listening to court decisions. But, we quibble here about details. This is about big D Democracy and our President knows something about Big D Democracy . . . when it comes to small Central American states.

Woldy

Blue State, Red State, Keep it in Your Pants, Mate!

Can it possibly be true that Republicans have more lust than Democrats, or that Democrats are just better at not getting caught? Yes, we know about Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and John Edwards, but come on . . . it seems that more Republicans than Democrats are cheating on their wives these days.

Governor Sanford is the second elected Republican official this month to admit an affair. In the last couple of years, we have had the "wide stance" Senator and the "Congressional Intern" Congressman, both Republicans. Maybe this is just a statistical cluster and there really is no difference, in this respect, between powerful Democrats and Republicans . . . but let's assume for a moment that there is a difference.

What explains this? Anyone have any theories?

Woldy

Slip Sliding Away . . . Slip Sliding Awayayay.

The great poll numbers for St. Barack are starting to erode.

This is not surprising and totally predictable (and predicted by certain commentators). First, his very high approval rates were non-sustainable. As soon as he started to act, they were destined to go down (because there are winners and losers on every issue). Second, despite the fervor with which his ardent fans (and they are more fans than anything else) view him, it is factual that Barack Obama was elected by Independent voters who thirsted for change. Indepenent voters are really not all that attached to Obama personally (unlike his fans). What they wanted, what they voted for, isn't turning out to be exactly what President Obama is delivering. And, this is showing up in the polling numbers.

Independent voters are becoming increasingly concerned at both; 1) the pace at which the President is spending money (or planning to spend it . .. ala health care) and 2) what he is doing with our economy (i.e. inserting Government into more and more aspects of "private" industry).

By the way, if you think St. Barack isn't focused on polling numbers . . . think again. His fans don't really like to acknowledge it, but he is a politician first and foremost.

Reminder: I voted for him . . . but, I am also an Independent who is increasingly uncomfortable with what I see him doing.

Woldy

I Agree

Not suprisingly, I agree with the curmudgenly commentator about the Chrysler bankruptcy.

The actions of the Administration, inserting itself into the reorganization (what is a Car Czar anyway?) of these two large corporations, deciding who wins and who loses, sets a dangerous precedent for the future and may, in the end, do more harm that good.

Yes, it may very well be true that, as my friend JL pointed out, many of the secured creditors were hedge funds who bought their positions speculatively at less than face value. However, this fact (?) should not distract from the central, and more important, issue. To me, it is irrelevant who the secured creditors were. What happened to them matters more. The Obama Administration re-wrote private contracts between parties and re-prioritized creditors according to the priorities of the Obama Administration. Whether, or not, they did this for political reasons is up for debate. But, one can definitely be left with the impression that they did. And, that, my friends, is a very dangerous precedent indeed. That kind of behavior passes muster in Chicago, but should we allow that kind of you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours politics to prevail at the national level?

Do we live in Putin's Russia or the (late) great U. S. of A? Can one man re-arrange the chess pieces on the board at his whim, or is he - even he - still subject to the rule of law?

Speaking of the rule of law . . . Ken Feinberg is now going to be the Czar of compensation for executives at TARP recipient companies. So, we now have a Government official deciding how much 175 people who work in the private sector can get paid . . . until, that is, the companies pay back the TARP funds they borrowed (which is why they are lining up to return the money).

I just find it so ironic that China and Russia are moving towards free markets and The U.S.A. is moving towards central planning. What's next? The Obama 5 Year Economic Plan?

Please, fellow commentators, do not respond to me with missives about how Bush did this, or Bush did that, and how terrible Bush was. Bush isn't President any longer. Obama is. And, Obama needs to stand on his own two feet, and be held accountable for what HE IS DOING. Reflections on how Obama's actions relate to what Bush did are not dispositive on whether the actions of Obama are something to endorse or reject.

Woldy

Comment from Follower

How about your thoughts on the abuse of the section 363 bankruptcy process to screw over the secured creditors to favor other unsecured creditors including the labor unions? Beyond the "takings" involved and the fact that the D's are now shoveling $ to their supporters in a backdoor fashion, how about the fact that borrowers hereafter will pay more to banks since they will have to price this added risk into their loan pricing? That's got to get you going a little??

This is the real import of the Fiat transaction. Same thing is going to happen in the GM bankruptcy case too.

Fiat and Chrysler: Shotgun Wedding

Anyone interested in an over-under bet on how many years before Fiat/Chrysler ends up in Chapter 11?

Mr. Obama Goes to Cairo

Our President is a very earnest guy and I believe that he truly does want to do good things in the World. But I found his speech today to be quite troubling.

Obama spoke eloquently today about the 60 year plight of the Palestinians. And, he left the clear impression that it was the State of Israel that was the sole cause of the plight of the Palestinians. Little history lesson: there never was a country called Palestine. Ever. And, when two Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 19 years between 1948 and 1967, they did not create a state called Palestine then either (they occupied the land). Israel is but one party among many that are responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

Going back even further, when the British Mandate proposed to split the land between the Jews and the Arabs in 1917, they divided the land into two states, separated by the Jordan River. What is now Jordan was supposed to be the Arab state and everything West of the Jordan (including what is now called the West Bank and Gaza) was to be the Jewish state. That plan languished, the Kingdom of Jordan was created, as a gift to a tribal leader who assisted the British in another conflict. And, Palestine remained a British protectorate until 1948 when the UN split what was left of the land.

The Jews said "thank you very much" and the Arabs said "no" and invaded. The rest is history (and needs more space than I have here). Flash forward to Oslo and 1993 when a peace process was started and the dynamics set in motion to result in a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, violence stopped that process and more bloodshed resulted.

Then along comes Bill Clinton and Camp David when the bluff was finally called publicly once and for all. The Palestinians were offered a solution that included having their own state, 98% of the pre-1967 land and partial control of Jerusalem. That offer was rejected by Yasir Afafat, who then plunged into the Second Intifada, which cost thousands more lives and has resulted in a decade of on-again, off-again war. The lost decade also included a unilateral pullout of Israel from Gaza, which was another test for Palestinian leadership. Now they had a chance to prove to the World that they could handle the responsibilities of governance. Instead, thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza and the land has been turned into a wasteland. And, this, too, is all Israel's fault. No matter how irresponsible and crooked the Palestinian leadership is . . . it is Israel that is at fault.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians continued to suffer, as do the Israelis. The Palestinians want their own state. The Israelis want to live life. Israel does not want to govern the Palestinians. But, they don't want to have rockets fired at them more than they don't want to rule over the Palestinians. Until the Palestinians solve that little problem, they will not have a state of their own. No matter what our well-meaning (and naive) President would like to think.

There is one other problem with his approach to this conflict, which is that he is setting himself, and by extension us, up to fail. He likes to lecture about how diplomacy works (he's been President for what, five months?) Well, if he consults some of those diplomats he employs in Foggy Bottom, he will find out that in most successful diplomatic deals there is usually a lot of talk behind the scenes and frameworks agreed upon privately well in advance of any public proclamations about what this party or that party needs to do. This is not the approach President Obama is taking on this. He is laying out markers and drawing lines in the sand before talking is seriously undertaken.

And, the shame of it all is that the Israelis have shown a willingness to give up almost anything to get peace (the terms offered at Camp David are unthinkable today, a mere 9 years later). They really don't need to be pushed that hard. The only problem is there has never been, and still isn't, a party on the other side of the table who is equally willing, and able, to give it all away . . . in order to prevent yet another generation of Palestinians from growing up in refugee camps. Yet, sadly, at the end of the day, no matter what befalls the Palestinians . . . we all know who's fault it will be.

Woldy

Government Ownership of GM is a Bad Idea

President Obama says that the U.S. Government will be a passive investor in GM, not taking any Board seats and not interfering with the running of the company by the "car guys". Once again displaying stunning naivete, the President seems to think that by saying these words, he will somehow address the nagging concern that many Americans have over owning a piece of GM (for crying out loud, we don't even want to buy their cars, let alone own the company). As if the words, delivered by him, will convince us that the U.S. Government has the capacity to be passive owners.

Only thing is . . . didn't the President just fire the CEO of GM a month or so ago? Would that be considered the actions of a "passive" investor. Then again there is the little problem of the fact that the Government regulates the product that GM produces in significant ways (safety, fuel efficiency, to name but two important ones). How does the need to regulate GM get prioritized against the needs of the shareholders?

Oh, and by the way, what happened to the pensions, and promises of lifetime health insurance, for the over 400,000 retired GM workers? No one wants to talk about those multi-billion dollar debts. Let me guess . . . those would now be taxpayer obligations instead of obligations that get wiped out during a bankruptcy proceeding?

I am also guessing that, since we don't actually live in the Kingdom of Obama (despite the desire of some to believe we do), there is another branch of Government that has something to say about how GM is managed. That other branch has GM dealers, some GM plants (though a lot fewer now), and a lot of GM captive businesses in their districts. Does anybody reasonably expect this other branch of Government to play along as passive investors?

This is a train-wreck. The proper use of bankruptcy should have been allowed. The code was designed to help companies like GM to restructure and survive, albeit in a smaller or different form than before. What we have done instead is substitute taxpayer money for the pain that would have accompanied a "real" bankruptcy. Once again, the poor schmuck taxpayers are picking up the tab.

Feel better?