Morality and the Law

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLVII

By Stephen Ellis

THE $700 BILLION EXPERIMENT

To all my dear readers:  I have been writing this blog every week for three years.  This week, AOL informed me that they are discontinuing the publication of blogs.  I will plan to relocate my blog so that you may continue to read it, enjoy it, disagree with it, etc.  My final two blogs for AOL will set forth my new blogging address.  I hope you’ll continue to read it.

Nobody asked me, but…

            This week, our Congress (finally) passed the $700 billion bail-out for our financial institutions.  The passage of this bail-out was a very necessary evil.  The timing is such that either John McCain or Barack Obama will be taking office at about the same time as the ripple-effect of this bill begins to be felt…which is a good thing:  It took Bush and Cheney eight full years to wreck the strongest economy in the world.  Fortunately, the voters were smart enough not to have given Jimmy Carter four more years because, at the rate he was going, he would have done an even worse job on our economy.

            A new President, new political appointees, etc. may give this country new hope which, in turn, will give all the other nations in the world new hope.

            One thing that many people do not fully comprehend is that the economy of the USA is so powerful, so vast and so multi-national, that almost every country in the world is dependent upon it.  The exceptions, obviously, are those nations that are oil-exporting nations.  General Motors may no longer be the largest auto manufacturer in the world, but Toyota (which is now the largest)is owned to a significant extent by GM, Ford and Damler Benz.  Everything these days is multi-national…and most important of all…is based upon the value of the US dollar.  So, when the US economy is in trouble, most of the world is in trouble.

            Merely fixing the blame on de-regulation and on the incredible avarice/gluttony of Wall Street, is not sufficient.  In my opinion, most of the CEOs on Wall Street should be in jail (as should Bush and Cheney).  It was a combination of greed, stupidity and de-regulation that caused our economic problems.  Now our Congress has voted enough money to “fix” the problems.

            The bailout approved by Congress is sadly lacking in many respects, and I think the bill may have been written by monkeys.  It puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of Treasury Secretary Paulson (who, in my opinion, cannot intelligently write a check to pay his electric bill), it provides for an insufficient amount of oversight and it saves the necks of the very people who caused the problem.  Still, it is far better than simply allowing things to “continue” with Bush at the helm.

            However, by the time our Secretary of the Treasury is able to start writing checks, we should have a new Secretary of the Treasury and a new President..  Because of my position with the Superior Court, I am not allowed to state that I prefer one candidate over another, but I can state that if McCain is elected we will have a continuation of the George W. Bush administration, and if Obama is elected, everything will change.   Make your own choice.

            The way it’s supposed to work is this:

            The Federal Government (the “Fed”) will go to all the major banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions and buy-up all of their real estate owned by virtue of foreclosure (“REO”).  The Fed will hold these properties until the real estate market turns around, and will then sell them to buyers (hopefully) at a profit.  The Fed will also buy up the mortgages of people who are facing foreclosure, and try to re-negotiate the rates and payments to help people stay in their homes.  However, if the people can’t make the reduced, renegotiated payments, the Fed will foreclose and take the property into its inventory to be sold at a later date

In theory, by buying up all the bad debts, this will free capital at the lending institutions and will ease the credit crunch which, in turn, will stimulate the real estate market and free-up investments into new businesses and old business expansions, thus creating more jobs.

It can work!  As history shows us, however, the “Devil is in the Details”.  How it is administered will make the difference between the success and failure of the plan.  How effectively regulations are placed on Wall Street firms and financial institutions to prevent a recurrence of this is vital to the success of the plan.  And these regulations have to be made effective immediately.

It would be normal to expect that the printing of $700 billion in additional currency should have the affect of making the dollar weaker against other currencies.  The fact is, however, that almost all European and Asiatic nations are so dependent on the US economy that a recession in the USA may well cause a “global” recession, weakening the European and Asiatic currencies and thus giving the dollar greater strength in comparison to them.  Europe and Asia also appear to be counting on an Obama administration which they believe will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly and stop the drain of US dollars on needless wars.  Finally, the world has seen genuine signs that the USA is finally doing something about its dependency on foreign oil,,,and that should have the effect of lowering oil prices and strengthening the dollar.

As I said, nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLVI

By Stephen Ellis

THE GREAT DEBATE

Nobody asked me, but…

            The first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama is over, and discussions at my home have been about “who won” the debate.  Inasmuch as I have a split-family (some McCain and some Obama supporters), the discussions have, occasionally, gotten a little heated.  The result is very foreseeable:  the McCain supporters thought McCain came out best and the Obama supporters thought Obama came out best.

            Inasmuch as I try to maintain an unbiased posture, I felt this would make a good topic for my blog.

            Actually, the debate has to be broken down into a few distinct parts:

1.    Who was the better debater?  On this question, I have to give the nod to McCain.  He kept his mannerisms very simple so that people, generally, could identify more with what he had to say.  He constantly attacked Obama by saying that he is the more experienced of the two and implying that Obama had little or no experience to lead the country and that national leadership requires a lot of experience.  Obama, on the other hand, sounded as if he was still at Harvard and much of what he had to say went over the audience’s head.  He did associate McCain with Bush and stated that McCain had supported more than 90% of Bush’s policies, but this point was only “mentioned” by Obama and not hammered-home as it needed to be.

2.    Who’s body language was superior?  On this question, the nod goes to Obama.  Obama, apparently, listened carefully to everything McCain had to say, and, although he occasionally broke out into a smile, generally, he gave the appearance of paying-attention to his opponent.  When Obama spoke, countering what McCain had to say, he looked directly at McCain.  McCain, on the other hand, played to the camera.  He never, even once, looked directly at Obama, and I really wasn’t sure who McCain was talking to other than the camera.  He did not listen when Obama spoke, but, instead, looked around at the audience and smiled frequently.

3.    Who appeared more presidential?  Again, Obama gets the nod.  McCain slouched when he wasn’t speaking while Obama stood tall at all times and spoke in a very subdued manner.  Actually, I think that Obama could have made a lot of points if he had, even on one occasion, raised his voice to emphasize a point and/or to counter what most of us knew was a totally inaccurate statement made by McCain.  To me, McCain came across as being older than his actual years, and quite “tired”.

4.    Who brought out the most issues?  On this question I’m going to vote for a tie.  Unquestionably, Obama brought out a significantly higher number of issues, but he fired them out so rapidly that many of them were missed by the audience.  On the other hand, McCain brought out very few issues and repeated them over and over.  Mc Cain constantly repeated his theme of Obama’s lack of experience and how the nation needs an “experienced” leader.

             Generally, I would say Obama picked up more votes than he lost, but I’ll leave questions like that to the pollsters.

            What I would have liked to seen is one of the candidates step up and say “Who appointed the USA as the world’s policeman?  Our military and our military budget should be designed to protect Americans and not be a mercenary force running into foreign, sovereign, nations and protecting them from our enemies.”  Are we so absolutely stupid that we haven’t learned some simple lessons? 

Why were we fighting in Korea?  Because a government our CIA helped to install into office was being attacked by their northern neighbor as a part of an expanding Cold War with the Soviet Union!  Reports of human abuses and kidnappings south of the 38th parallel have all been proven to be fictitious tales created by our CIA.

            Why were we in Viet Nam?  Again, because a government our CIA helped to install was being attacked from within by people who didn’t like that government.  Again, the stories of humanity abuses, an attack on a US vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin, etc., were all concocted by our CIA.

            Why are we in Iraq?  Because a very stupid US President and Vice President thought they saw an opportunity to take-over Iraqi oil.  The deposing of Sadam Huessin was a joke.  We helped to install Sadam into power and gave him all his military might, but the CIA no longer liked him.  So, our CIA made up a story about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.

            Why are we in Afghanistan?  For  the same stupid reasons.  Our CIA tells us that we’re there to end the type of terrorism that occurred on 9/11.  The truth is that if we hadn’t stuck our noses where they didn’t  belong, there never would have been a 9/11.

            Without the four above-mentioned wars, our treasury would still be strong.  The dollar would be strong.  Employment would be high…and a lot of our young men and women would be happy, well and alive.  Can’t we learn?

As I said…nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLV

By Stephen Ellis

OUR ECONOMIC TROUBLES

Nobody asked me, but…

            Just in case you’ve been sleeping, our nation (and most of the rest of the world) is in economic turmoil.  Probably the most intelligent (if not the only intelligent) thing that George W. Bush has done since becoming President, is to direct our Congress to make a colossal “bailout” of our financial institutions.  I don’t know the inner-workings as to how this decision was reached, but it is not only a good decision, it is an excellent decision.  The fact that this has to be done to avoid a recession such as we had in the 1930s is fact.  It was a surprising decision for a President who has always relied on the “Good Ol’ Boys” type of government.

            Let’s face some ugly facts:  when someone is elected President of this nation, there are more than 100,000 politically-appointed jobs that must be filled.  Not just cabinet-level jobs, but jobs like local postmasters, Treasury Dept. jobs, Secret Service, financial advisers, GSA jobs, the CIA, the FBI, and  more than a thousand bureaucracies to be headed, etc., etc.  No one person can handle this number of appointments.  Even if one person could do it, he/she wouldn’t have the time to do anything else…like lead the nation.  So to accomplish the impossible, a President-elect selects a few people from each and every state plus some of his/her favorite Congressmen to do the job.  The President does not have the time to check each appointment out, so he/she hopes that they are well-thought-out.

            Rarely are these people selected on the basis of their intelligence, or their experience, etc.  They are selected because they are able to pay $28,000 per plate for a dinner to hear Barack Obama speak, or even more frequently, because they are “friends” of the individual appointing them.  This is better known as the “Good Ol’ Boys” syndrome.

            George W. Bush, more than any preceding President with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, appointed people to positions of national importance because they were his “friends”.  His “Good Ol’ Boys”.  Many of these people heading up such nationally important bureaucracies as FEMA, the SEC, the SB A. Homeland Security, etc. would probably have a difficult time punching their way out of a paper bag…no less heading up a national agency:  FEMA, under Michael D. Brown and David Paulison, has been a total disaster and cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars more than it should have cost.  They badly botched up New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and Galveston following Hurricane Ike.  People in New Orleans are still waiting for the FEMA money to help them rebuild

            Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice as our National Security Advisor and, later, as Secretary of State.  Rice is a very intelligent person, but she’s in way over her head.  She has been this nation’s most ineffective Secretary of State and under her National Security leadership, 9/11 occurred.  Bush even tried to appoint one of his law clerks to the Supreme Court.  The ability to handle a job effectively has never been a prerequisite of George W. Bush appointments.

            Therein is the source of our problems today.  If the head of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission), Christopher Cox, had done his job, there would not have been the greed, the stupidity and the arrogance of firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch who had to be bailed-out by the government.  If Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson, had done his job, AIG would never have found itself in the position of having to have the U.S. Government take-over.  If Bush had left Alan Greenspan in charge in the Federal Reserve instead of appointing his buddy, Ben Bernake, the U.S. dollar would still be among the strongest currencies in the world, etc.

            With the exception of the Carter administration (which may actually be worse than the Bush administration), our president has done the worst job of being President that I can recall.  His appointments of “Good Ol’ Boys” like Donald Rumsfield and Paul Wolfowitz helped to put us into the Iraq quagmire.

            This time, however, Bush  made a good decision that should help this nation work its way out of the economic quicksand he has managed to put us in.

            I knew JFK fairly well:  Contra to the images, books and other stories that are told about JFK, JFK had more physical ailments than anyone I had ever met.  He was constantly under a physician’s supervision.  One of the main reasons he was a good president was because he watched over his political appointments like a hawk.  I became a member of his California Economic Advisory Council.  I am proud to say that some of my efforts resulted in a very strong economy in California and a good relationship between California and Washington.  The work I did for JFK won me an appointment to Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty’s Economic Advisory Commission.

            The above paragraph is mentioned  because I do understand economics and I combine it with a lot of practical, common sense.  Sadly, while I am fairly well fixed, I am not on Obama’s or McCain’s list of “Good Ol’ Boys” because my job, as a Probate Referee for the Superior Court, will not allow me to make a partisan political contribution of more than $200 to any candidate in any given  year.  So, I will never be appointed to anything under Obama or McCain…but I do know and understand the causes of what we are now going through as a nation, and I know the steps we must take to bring things back into order.  But, who listens to someone who can’t afford a $28,000 dinner?

            As I said, nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLIV

By Stephen Ellis

A TYPICAL SOCCER-MOM

Nobody asked me, but…

            Ever Since the entry of Sarah Palin into the presidential campaign, the Democrats have been running around like a dog chasing its tale.  Whether McCain’s selection was “pure genius” or a “whopping mistake” will not be known until election time.  People, generally, have been identifying with Palin as a soccer-mom and someone who knows the plight of the average homemaker.

This has to be what McCain wanted, because, say what you will for McCain (and there is a lot of good to say for him) John McCain is out of touch with the common man.  A man who does not even know how many homes he and his wife have is not the right person to sympathize or empathize with people losing their homes to foreclosure.  McCain is married to one of America’s wealthiest women.

            I have great difficulty in understanding why the people of this country seem to feel that Sarah Palin is a person who can identify with the common man.  Maybe for the first 20 years of her life: she was a “normal” woman.  By the time she was 23 (the age most kids graduate from college and look for their first real job) she was on the City Counsel of Wasilla Alaska, by the time she was 27 she was the Mayor of Wasilla, by the time she was 33 she had run (and lost) an election to become the Lt. Governor of Alaska and by age 37 she was elected Governor of Alaska…not to mention having been appointed as the Chairman of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.

            All of this is highly commendable and clearly demonstrates that Sarah Palin is an exceptionally intelligent and ambitious woman with a lot of drive.

            But she is definitely not a typical soccer-mom that people throughout the USA can identify with.  Alaska  has one of the lowest foreclosure rates in America (less than one-half of one percent; approximately 1,300 foreclosures),  compared to the almost 500,000 foreclosures in California.  She has no way of identifying with the masses that are losing their homes in other states.  It’s interesting to note that since she became Governor of Alaska, the unemployment rate there has risen to one of the nation’s highest levels...the same as California.  Oh well, I think Schwarzenegger has been a pretty poor Governor, too.

            I’m not suggesting that Sarah Palin is not a good V.P selection, but she is far from being a typical soccer-mom with a pregnant 17-year old daughter who likes to hunt from the safety of a helicopter and who would rather see her daughter (at age 17) married to another kid (age 18) rather than have a fair chance in life.  No one faults Palin for being a conservative…even an extreme Conservative…  But she is not a typical soccer-mom and apparently has very little in common with most women.

            One thing is definitely working in favor of McCain.  The democratic candidates are trying to attack Palin instead of attacking John McCain and his policies.  This has taken an awful lot of pressure away from McCain’s campaign.

Speaking of McCain’s campaign, he now is trying to posture himself as the candidate for “change”.  McCain has endorsed, Bush’s policies on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  He has endorsed Bush’s plans for tax cuts and increasing the national debt.  He has endorsed Bush’s plans for no universal medical care.  He has endorsed Bush’s plans on Education, oil, economic policies, etc., etc., etc.  What “change” is he planning to bring to America?

            Obama has shown himself to be a very bright and articulate.  He is, however, having a very difficult time admitting when he was wrong.  I agree that Obama’s plans for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan make tons more sense than do those of McCain, but Obama was clearly wrong when he opposed the “Surge” in Iraq.  The “Surge” worked!  Maybe there were other reasons why it worked, and maybe it didn’t work as well or in the way General Petraeus and Bush thought it would work…but it did work.  Why doesn’t Obama simply admit that he was wrong and get on with it?  Presidents are not people who don’t make mistakes!  Human beings are not people who don’t make mistakes.

            In fact, the only people who don’t make mistakes are those that don’t do anything.

            As I said, nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLIII

By Stephen Ellis

A LOOK AT THE CANDIDATES

Nobody asked me, but…

            Now that the candidates for President and Vice President have been officially declared, I think we should try to take an unbiased look at them.  Let’s look at their good points, their bad points, etc.  I will try to remain as impartial as possible, but I do want to say that I am not happy with either set of candidates.  To me, this is going to be one of those elections where we will be choosing the lesser of the evils and not the “best” candidate.  I don’t understand why a country this large, this educated and this powerful has to come up with a presidential election of McCain v. Obama.

JOHN McCAIN

            The Good:  McCain has been a Senator since 1986 and he knows his way around Washington.  He is honest and forthright and familiar with foreign affairs.  He is a strong believer in tax reduction.  He believes in the positions he takes even when everyone else does not agree.  McCain is gutsy and will fight for what he believes to be right.  Like Bush, he will act on his beliefs and not yield to political pressure.

            The Bad:  I do not feel that being shot-down by the enemy qualifies someone to be the President or even a Senator.  As a Senator, McCain helped to create the Savings fiasco where the government had to step in and take over most of the savings associations and banks fifteen years ago.  McCain’s track record with economic matters is about as bad as you get, and this country is in dire need of economic leadership.  McCain stands with Bush on how to handle the situation inIraq.

BARACK OBAMA

            The Good:  Obama has shown that he is exceptionally intelligent, can rally the voters and win against what seemed to be insurmountable odds.  He has garnered very strong support from the military and political leaders in Europe.  If he wins, he will help reunite the USA with the rest of the world destroyed by Bush. Obama is young and energetic and is genuinely committed to “change”.  Obama’s stated fiscal policies make much more sense than do Mc’Cain’s.

            The Bad:  Obama has only been a Senator for three years which, in Washington, is not enough time to even know which doors to open.  Obama is a Liberal who believes in stronger government.  He has little or no background in fiscal responsibility.  His stated plans for energy and creating a higher employment rate are flawed.  He appears to be very headstrong, and lacking in foresight.  His “snubbing” of Hillary Clinton may prove to be a fatal mistake to his presidential campaign.

SARAH PALIN

            The Good:  She is America’s newest star.  She obviously knows how to read a teleprompter well, she has excellent speech-writers and she has risen from nothingness to being the number one star in America.  She has risen from housewife to PTA President, to Mayor of a small town in Alaska to Governor of Alaska in a remarkably short period of time.  I do not know enough about her other accomplishments to discuss them at this time.

The Bad:  She is totally ill-equipped to take over the reins of the country if the 72 year old McCain should die or become incapacitated.  Putting all the partisan political baloney aside, the fact is that she received a total of less than 115,000 votes in getting elected as Governor of Alaska: less than ten percent of the votes needed to be elected Mayor of Miami, Florida.  She is an ultra-conservative; she is anti pro-choice and has expressed her desire to overturn Roe v. Wade  Her fiscal dealings while both Mayor and Governor are suspect but have not yet become an open book.  She is a small-town, small state leader with absolutely zero qualifications to run a nation of the size and magnitude of the U.S.A..

JOE BIDEN

            The Good:  Joe Biden has been a Senator for thirty five years and is probably the most intelligent Senator in Washington as well as the singularly most experienced Senator concerning foreign affairs and the judiciary.  He is distinctively not a favorite of lobbyists and has a net worth of less than any other Senator (which should tell you a lot about him).  He is completely honest and has never allowed any power group to contribute more than two percent of his total campaign contributions.  He would adequately be able to serve as a responsible president should Obama die or become incapacitated.

            The Bad:        Joe Biden has a record of being too liberal.  He favors affirmative action programs and has been extremely indecisive on matters concerning immigration.  Biden wants the government to fund universal health care, a college education for everyone paid by the government, energy independence, etc., but has never suggested “how” “why” and “where” the funds would come from to accomplish these things.  Biden may mean well, but he appears to be lacking in economic fundamentals.

As I said…nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLII

By Stephen Ellis

McCAIN’S CHALLENGE

Nobody asked me, but…

            I’ll say this for John McCain:  he’s gutsy!   His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was a genuinely gutsy decision.  The obvious thought is that, by selecting a female, he will pick up a lot of very unhappy Hillary supporters who really wanted to see a woman as Vice President.  I have not studied this sufficiently to know whether it will have the desired affect or if it will boomerang in McCain’s face.

            I’m not going to talk about her lack of experience in foreign affairs because when Jimmy Carter ran against Gerald Ford, Ford repeatedly cried out that Carter was the Governor of a small state and had no foreign affairs experience.  As we all know, Carter won.

            When Ronald Reagan ran for his first term as president, the same hue and cry went up…and, of course Reagan won.

            When Bill Clinton ran against George Sr. for President, Bush Sr. used every single ad to decry Clinton as having no foreign affairs experience.  Of course, Clinton won.

            Still, it is doubtful that anyone in the country (other than citizens of Alaska) had even ever heard of Sarah Palin.  To date, all we know about her is that she is a conservative, she is a strong pro-life advocate and that she moved, in very few years, from being the president of her PTA branch to being a City Councilwoman  to being Mayor of the city of Wasilla, Alaska (a city of about 8,000 population) to being Governor of Alaska, and that she has a pregnant seventeen year old daughter.  There is little doubt in my mind that she is one sharp cookie and is thoroughly immersed in the game of politics…even if only on the Alaskan level.

            Right now, very little is known about her, but you can bet your bottom dollar that every media person who specializes in dredging up people’s past will soon have a recorded comment from her first boyfriend, every man she ever dated and everyone in Alaskan politics who doesn’t like her…as well as some juicy tidbits about her family.  That’s the nature of national politics.

            One thing about her that has already been brought to light by the lady herself, is that she likes to hunt and kill caribou.  I’m not someone who likes to hunt.  I don’t think a man with a gun is fair contest for some stupid deer.  But a lady who is a staunch pro-life advocate who likes to go out of her way to kill a deer is a bit of an enigma in my mind.  Obviously, she doesn’t do it for food…and a lady with a rifle in her hand is always something to watch-out for.  Men, sometimes, have this need to prove themselves superior to some unthinking animal…but it’s on the rare side to find a woman with the same psychosis.  But it’s the way she hunts that bothers me most:  She doesn’t stalk her pray and try and catch a moment that’s right to kill.  She sits in an open helicopter and shoots at everything that moves…not giving the animal any chance whatsoever.

            But, fear not.  By the time the history dredgers get through with her, I’ll bet that killing deer will be one of the lesser faults the world can find with her.

            We’ll all know very soon.

            In my opinion, the singularly worst Mayor in the United States is Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans.  The devastation of New Orleans resulting from hurricane Katrina can be laid, in large part, directly at his feet.  His absolute refusal to do any planning for the hurricane caused as much, if not more, damage than did the hurricane itself.

            But, apparently he actually learned something from Katrina.  With hurricane Gustav headed right back for New Orleans, Nagin planned for an orderly evacuation of the city in advance.  Maybe I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of the man.  We’ll see “if” and “when” Gustav actually strikes New Orleans and what the aftermath will be.

            As it happens Gustav’s force diminished sharply before it hit the Louisiana coast, but I still tip my hat to Nagin for preparing for the worst.

            Make no mistake about it,  Gustavo was still a strong hurricane.

            Everything went surprisingly well for Obama at the Democratic convention.  I really expected Hillary to make a floor fight out of it instead of offering Obama her sound support. 

            I wonder what would have been the result if McCain had nominated Hillary to be his vice president.  An interesting thought?

            As I said, nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CLI

By Stephen Ellis

IS OBAMA ATTEMPTING SUICIDE

Nobody asked me, but…

            Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden to be his running mate, in my opinion, is tantamount to attempting political suicide.  Not that there’s anything wrong with Joe Biden.  The senior Senator from Delaware is probably one of the best Senators in our Congress today; he has long been the chairman of the foreign relations and the judiciary committees.  There is no doubt that he would be an excellent addition to this nation as a vice president.

            But Obama has to get elected first, and his naming someone other than Hillary Clinton to be his running mate will probably cost him the presidential election…and it may even cost him the Democratic presidential nomination.

            One of the biggest problems that a young man like Obama has in becoming an “instant celebrity” is that he becomes surrounded by people who think he is God and they treat him like he is God.  They constantly remind Obama that he came out of nowhere and beat the favorite, Hillary Clinton, in electing the numbers of delegates necessary to be nominated.  The press, until now, has favored Obama over John McCain.  Obama has raised significantly more campaign funds than has John McCain.

            The problem with this is that the candidate begins to believe it himself and starts to think of himself as being able to do no wrong.

            But it’s not true!  And “truth” has a way of catching-up with you.

            The people around Obama may forget to remind him that Hillary Clinton garnered significantly more popular votes than he did.  They may forget to remind him that the Clintons are experienced politicians with more than a few tricks up their sleeve.  The “snubbing” of Hillary Clinton as Obama’s running mate may cause a significant split in the nomination process.

            Obama’s advisers who treat him like untouchable royalty have probably not mentioned that while the elected delegates to a convention are supposed to cast their votes as the voters said to cast them, they are under no obligation to do so.  The Clintons are owed a lot of political favors, and it would not surprise me to see some of Obama “committed” delegates change their vote if Hillary creates a floor-fight at the Democratic Convention.

            Then, too, what will the voters of America do?  More than half the registered Democratics wanted to see Hillary Clinton nominated for president.  They accepted Obama’s probable nomination because he won the needed numbers of delegates…or because they simply did not like or trust John McCain who seems to be little more than a continuation of the George W. Bush policies for America.  But they held out very strong hope that Hillary would be Obama’s running mate…which would have solidified the Democratic Party and created a virtual landslide election over the Republicans.

            Just look at the polls: In the past couple of weeks when Obama starting hinting strongly that Hillary would not be his running mate, Obama has lost a minimum of five percentage points.  Now that his announcement concerning Biden has been made, just watch Obama’s poll figures start sliding even more.

            Although it is an unlikely scenario, if Hillary Clinton decides to have a floor fight at the Democratic convention, she starts with almost as many delegates as Obama.  There are significant numbers of voters and delegates who might more strongly support an Obama- Biden ticket if Obama had another ten years of experience…but who are afraid that in an Obama/McCain race Obama may run a poor second.  Most feel that it is extremely important to this country that we have a Democrat in the White House.  If Clinton can get a few of Obama’s “committed” delegates to switch their allegiance from Obama to her, Barack Obama may not even wind up being the Democratic nominee.

            The majority of registered Democrats will not switch allegiance and vote for McCain, but a surprisingly strong number of Democrats have said that, without Hillary, they are simply not going to vote…and that has the same effect as voting for McCain.

            There is no doubt in my mind that an Obama-Clinton ticket would win.  But the selection by Obama of Joe Biden…as good a man as he may be…may condemn this country to another eight years of a Bush-type administration. 

            As I said, nobody asked me.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

MORALITY AND THE LAW  CL

By Stephen Ellis

WHEN WILL THE RECESSION END

Nobody asked me, but…