There are

no more conservatives. Bailouts for everyone. I just want to know where my bailout is???? I don't really need one, but thats not the point! Bear Sterns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, AIG! Give me a break. As much as I can't stand Olberman(I watch him to keep up with the other side) he had a headline for one of his stories titled "Private profits/Socialized losses" in regards to all the bailouts going on. I didn't actually watch the segment, but the title summed up my feelling on the issue quite nicely.

Funny though, how the Democrats like Socialized profits/Private losses when it comes to the oil companies.

All of the companies listed above are in dires straits because of poor decisions that they made and they should suffer the consequences. AIG, a huge international conglomerate, primarilly involved in industrial/comercial/consumer insurance, ventured into insuring bonds (aka Credit Default Swaps/CDS). To say that AIG did not understand the risks associated with this type of insurance is an understatement. Credit Default Swaps are almost exclusively responsible for AIG's percarious situation. That gamble has turned out to be a losing one for AIG and instead of suffering the consequences of their risk management decisions, we the tax payers are going to suffer for it.

In any business there is risk and reward. When the government steps in to remove the risk portion of the equation it distorts everything. The government should not be bailing out anyone. Big business nor home owners....no one!!!!

Obama is an agent of change....yea right. His top 2 economic advisors are from none other than.....wait for it....Freddie May and Fannie Mac who walked away with millions as the tax payers were left to foot the bill. There is an agent of change for you!!!

McCain is not much better, though I think he is slightly better.

Increasingly though I thinks it matters not who is in office. They are all slaves to their next election, or their next campaign donor.......

Measure twice, cut once

And other life lessons I should have learned by now. I hear that the web link I put in my last post, well lets just say it didn't work so well! Along the same lines on Monday I went to the Luxor Casino and repaired the wrong truck! Note to self: Always match serial numbers!!! Aside from that work is going well. I still like it a great deal.

Roger and Deanna left on Tuesday. Nancy is here until Thursday or Friday. We had a great time with them. I'll soon have some more pics up from their visit.

I have to also discuss the primaries. The Democrats are in a bit of a dilemma at this point in my opinion. Obama cannot beat McCain. Clinton cannot beat Obama, unless she is handed the nomination by the super delegates. If she is indeed handed the nomination I suspect that she will lose to McCain because of the outrage from Obama Democrats. It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

In other news, as back in Michigan where there has been sightings of the ever elusive "Panther" in south east Michigan, in Las Vegas there have been sightings of a lioness on the prowl. I was lucky enough to capture two photographs of the lioness as you can see below:

Get The Fork!

First of all I must admit I was wrong. I never thought that Obama would actually win the nomination for a whole host of reasonsIt's time for us to unite and get ready for the fall campaign.
~George McGovern~
I think after Clinton's stinging win in
Indiana and Obama's even better than expected win in North Carolina that Clinton is done! You can put a fork in Clinton, she is done.

Gas tax holiday?

It is nothing but a gimmick. As if we, as consumers, would even see any of the price reduction. This is pandering at its worst. There are no short term fixes for the price of gas with maybe the exception of changing our driving behaviour, which in all honesty is not very likely to happen anytime soon. Sure the sales of larger truck and SUVs are down and the sale of gas sipping cars are up, but this would take years to to actually change the price of gas. Our only solutions are long term. They include:

1. Drilling at home
2. Conservation
3. Nuclear energy
4. Alternative Energy

There is no silver bullet. Small contributions in each of the areas above can, eventually, lead to lower prices....maybe..... But to hear all of the candidates talking about how they are going to end our dependence on foreign oil is laughable at best. It will take decads to do it, if its even possible.

What we need is

a reluctant President.

Washington was a reluctant President.

Ford was also considered to be one.

We could do worse.

Actually we will do worse given the choices available.

Political Posturing? Who Me?

Obama seems to be angered by his ex pastor accusing him of political posturing to get elected.

Obama stated:
"And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

We all know that politicians never engage in "political posturing". Especially Obama. He would never denounce NAFTA and the have his surrogates tell the Canadians that he didn't really mean it. Maybe that is not "political posturing", maybe it is just plain old fashioned lying. Maybe just like a good old fashioned polotician would do.

Who is weaker?

Obama or Clinton....Clinton or Obama. Perception is reality....or so the saying goes.....

Clinton is hounding Obama about holding debates. Now in the few years I have payed attention to national elections(about 27 years), asking for a debate, demanding to have a debate has always been the province of those who perceive themselves as on the way to losing the election. As such they have little to lose and much to gain by a debate. Another opportunity to take their adversary down another notch or two.

A the leader in an election, as expected, has a lot to lose and little to gain in a debate. The risk of saying something stupid, not having a good answer, or sometimes, just being on the debate stage with the weaker candidate which can be seen as "elevating" them to your level, is not worth what little a candidate can get out of a debate.

I would say that, if nothing else, the Clinton campaign perceives itself to be in a weaker position than Obama.

Clinton has a built a high wall to climb to win the primary. As I see her campaign, her problems are:
1. Her baggage. She has more baggage than pack rat on her way to a pack rat convention. Fair or not, it is still there.

2. She and Bill could have starred in the movie "Liar, Liar!" I do realize that all politicians lie, but she is PERCEIVED as a liar whereas the other two are not perceived that way to any great degree.

Obama also has some problems that will hurt him, albeit more in the general than the primary. Those are:

1. He is an eletist. His remarks in San Francisco leave little to the imagination on that issue. It may have played well in the primary, but it WILL be used to clobber him in the general election.

2. I think his lack of experience will also hurt him in the general election.

McCain also has issues. Mainly that he is seen as, instead of a "compasionate conservative", he is seen as a "part-time conservative".

Wow

Not that I would have EVER voted for him, but I can not beleive he would be so stupid as to let these words pass from his lips:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”

Considering that he is entering Indiana and Pennsylvania for his next primaries I think he has dug himself quite a hole. In addition, his "explinations" of what he "meant" seem to me to be worse than what he said to begin with!

The primaries

A couple of things I want to blog about, well maybe only one thing anyway. Clinton has been trying to make it look like Obama does not want a re vote in Michigan and Florida. I'm not qualified to comment on Florida, but having lived in Michigna for over 30 years before moving to Vegas, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on it.
Clinton has tried to get the vote in Michigan to count, yet Obama was not even on the ticket. That hardly seems fair or democratic. She has also held the position that there should be a re-vote in Michigan. Obama has, in theory, agreed to this, if it could be done in a manner that was agreeable to both of them. Ofcourse Clinton's idea of a fair vote would be to prohibit anyone who voted in the Republican primary, namely Democrats or Indepenants who refused to vote for Clinton and instead voted for McCain from participating. This ofcourse would stack the vote for Clinton. Again this seems neither fair nor democratic. The only fair way to do it, as I see it, is to not seat the delegates. Michigan knew well the price for moving its primary dates. They should now be willing to take their lumps. As it looks now, no re vote will take place and the delegates will not be seated. That is as it should be.