Office Rumors

Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Rev. Wright, as was posted by Andrew Sullivan:

I watched some of Reverend Wright this morning at the National Press Club. It seems obvious to me that he’s doing everything he can to wipe out Obama’s candidacy, and I’ll tell you why I think it is. I think that people like Reverend Wright — and I think there are a lot of other race business hustlers out there, by the way, who think this — really upset that if a black candidate is elected president, that they’re going to be somehow diminished in their task, at keeping everybody in their flocks all revved up and angry about the ages old sin of slavery and the ongoing discrimination.

So it appears to me, if you look at Reverend Wright, listen to what he says and analyze it from the context or perspective of what’s best for him, which is clearly all he’s interested in, what’s best for him is that if Obama loses, because then it’s easy for him to say, “See, the white power structure doesn’t want a black man to rise to the pinnacle of power in the United States of America.”

[...]

It would certainly fuel Reverend Wright’s future and continue to help him raise money and keep people whipped up into a frenzy. He’s not helpful. Whatever he thinks he’s doing, it is not helpful to Barack Obama.

No matter your bias to Mr. Limbaugh and his antics (his pompous act is just that–its radio and its entertainment). On this topic, while it reflects a pretty cynical world view is really spot on. There has to be a willingness (and effort) on both sides to work for equality. With out this, we’re treading water as a society.

This furthermore calls to issue Obama’s connections with Rev. Wright and how long he has waited to distance himself. He knew he’d be running. His staff knew about Wright. Why was this not taken care of early on? Why did he have to come half way and brush him off as a crazy uncle? I hope he doesn’t consider Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another “crazy uncle.”

It is good to see that he has finally distanced himself. Andrew gives him too much credit, believing this is genuine. I’m not convinced many politicians of any party, race, or creed are completely genuine. He has a chance to take a huge–dare I say revolutionary, for American politics–step forward in domestic policy and public discourse if he can successfully promote dialog on this divisive matter.

Also, on Andrew, I’ve gotten rather fed up with him lately. He’s been way behind the curve on Wright and Ayers and is clinging to his very early endorsement of Obama. I stand by the thoughts I have posted of his here. They seem to be filled with a reasonable amount of clarity (much like the one above, where he *gasp* agreed with Limbaugh).

Now, back to International Finance!

It’s Dead Week this week at the University of Nebraska. In most places, you might think that means less work, or at least less class. In my experience (and that of my fellow students), that is not the reality. As such, blogging will be light here for the next week or so.

Finals week (May 5-9) shouldn’t be bad after Monday (the 5th).

Thank you for your patience.

Ever seen or pulled a practical joke like those in season one of The Office? Here’s 32 pictures of some pretty good ones. Everything from jello-covered peripherals to aluminum foiled cubicles.

I mentioned earlier that Power Line has been diligently doing the muckraking when it comes to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In this case, there are two articles–with sound clips–regarding two of his “friends,” Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This is scary stuff from when they were activists and even as recent as the last few years. Obama claims that this stuff doesn’t hold much water for him because he was so young at the time.

At minimum, he used connections with these people to gain power and political clout as an “organizer” and move up in the political ranks of the Chicago area from there. One of those moves involved the dinner at Ayers and Dohrn’s house, sponsored by the state senator he replaced.

The thing that the media and blogosphere have not pointed out is the simple hypocrisy of Obama’s “Change” platform. In his The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s plan for America, he writes:

We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority – to finally tackle problems that Washington has ignored for too long.  And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do in this election (Section 2:4).

This new politics of his “bringing the country together” is where I see the issue. He is the same dirty politician, rising out of rough backgrounds that are present in the mainstream political arena. The difference here is that he puts a charming, well-spoken face on it, which causes many people to trust him.

I’m not knocking his issues; I am knocking him as a candidate and a person. Its fraudulent to tell people you’re campaigning to bring a new type of politics to Washington (whatever that would be) and turn around and successfully play the same game his opponents do. In the last few weeks, we’ve seen his facade crack–most recently in his waffle incident. We’ll see how much more his shell is cracked as the Clinton camp gets more time to throw volleys before handing over the fight to the McCain campaign.

As you can see from prior posts here, I’ve been playing my commentary on the elections relatively equally. And, as far as issues are concerned, I would choose him, based on my “lesser-of-evils” discussions (most recently, here). When we break down candidates on a personality or character basis, there are some issues that certainly rise. Many of us know people that aren’t of the best character–people who have made mistakes in life–and many ourselves have made mistakes we aren’t proud of. The two individuals in this story still don’t have any regrets for their actions and wish they could have done more. Obama made use of their power and influence to further his political clout.

We often judge people by who they associate with. In this case, it gives us great insight into the Obama beyond the facade.

This Friday Photo of the Day comes from karindalzeil at Flickr.

Its from the inside of PO Pears, a now-closed watering hole in Lincoln known for its live music on week nights and its random stuff on the walls and ceiling. I used to eat here every Friday. Also, many people who attended the University of Nebraska as an undergraduate will remember its Jazz events on weeknights (was it Thursdays?). Last week they auctioned off its assets.

I am a huge proponent of smoking bans. It is one of few things that one person can do that can harm another. Now, however, there are movements to restrict freedoms of food choices, alcohol, and more. The vast majority of these have no effect on other individuals.

James Poulos has an interesting article on the pink police and their belief that certain normal choices–he uses vices–are too expensive for the state to afford. This is particularly worrying that people would take their power to impede on others. Poulos goes further, adding:

With the logic of latter-day capitalism pushing people toward the constant consumption of sociable personal pleasures (as the only reward that seems worth working for), pressure from above concerning which pleasures are permissible is not only freaky but dangerously paradoxical.

I’ve suggested before that the inevitable and prompt result of administrative tyranny is freedom by bribe. The particulars here seem to point in the same direction. Already we in the West are accustomed to our celebrities breakin’ all the rules. The more arbitrary and ridiculous the law becomes in trying to shape enjoyments, the more the issue will take on class contours. In the new dystopia, only the upper class will be able to afford lower class pleasures.

Now all the civil libertarians who protested smoking bans on the basis of the “slippery slope” argument look all the wiser.

It would appear that way. A look at their FY07 financials indicate that they are trying to pay down their taxes now. Any good tax adviser would recommend paying off taxes early only in the case that tax rates will rise. Otherwise, it is best to defer taxes because of inflation, which cause dollars in the future to be worth less.

From Google’s form 10-K, filed February 15th, we find the following information:

The negative deferred taxes is normally an odd thing to see. In this situation, it leads me to believe Google is predicting a Democrat victory and an increased corporate tax rate. In light of a President with a historically-low approval rating, a switch of parties in office is a real possibility. Also, with the Republican candidate looking to continue the current tax policy, Google is only losing possible gains via interest and inflation as opportunity costs.

An article from the AP (hosted at the Huffington Post), notes that US companies have recently adjusted their strategies to focus abroad. Their presence abroad has aided their margins through gains on currency appreciations compared to the dollar. Here’s the meat of it:

“If you look at some of the companies that had good quarters, they’re doing half or more business abroad,” said Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors. “The weakness in the dollar is a significant benefit in currency translation, and for those companies that are developing products that will create a boost for export activity.”

And a specific example:

Take Coca-Cola Inc. for example. Buying a can of Coke cost $1 in the United States, but the equivalent of about $2 in the U.K. — one reason the beverage giant was able to sail past Wall Street profit projections earlier this week.

Recently, investors have recommended against using multinationals with a heavy international exposure. The weakening dollar is one case in which this is different. If you expect depreciation of the dollar, but do not want to purchase assets abroad, the US multinationals can be an alternative.

The following links are the best on the web to wrap up the PA Primary last night in which Hillary “Hill” Clinton defeated Barrack “Barry” Obama by a margin of 54.3 to 45.7% (you might also note that Ron Paul picked up nearly 16% on the Republican side). Overnight, there were many reports (including the BBC Newspod I listened to this morning) that Hill got her much-needed double digit margin. In actuality, it is closer than reported (and that line is exactly the spin from the Obama camp).

• Maureen Dowd offers her thoughts–complete with all the sexual innuendo you can handle–claiming that Hill’s campaign has now become completely emasculating of her opponent:

She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.

Barry’s camp also seems to have taken on Hill’s historical belief in her own entitlement to the White House.

• Ann Althouse has a great breakdown that pulls together a variety of sources. Also, here and here.

• Power Line has a negative tone, but they’ve been attacking (and rightfully so!) both Democratic candidates dutifully from the beginning. In the end they call neither the winner, instead hailing Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in a landslide.

• Josh Marshall doesn’t believe anything has really changed, but sure hears is a lot of spin coming from both camps:

I’d say the real story is that this leaves us basically where we were. It was a decisive win for Hillary but that was the expectation. Going into tonight I think the dividing line was about 8 points. Closer than that and the story would have been that Obama didn’t win but closed the margin (which is how it looked early in the evening). A bigger margin than that and the story would be that Hillary got her big victory.

There are still more primaries to come; North Carolina and Indiana are next. For what seems like months Barry has been trying to hold together an unassailable lead. Even Rush Limbaugh knew too well shortly following Super Tuesday that Hill’s push will take her right to Denver. It is highly unlikely that she will be successful.

This is the exact situation Dem’s wanted to avoid, because Hill will cause Barry to spend more (draining his war chest), while McCain takes none of the shots. McCain also gets the chance to raise funding, consolidate his party and move towards the center. Whoever comes out of Denver with the nomination, will still have to take a considerable amount of time consolidating their base before their move to the center.

What is clear is that the race will continue to evolve and become more negative. Its part of the political game. If Barry can’t put up with a single reporter while he eats, his route to Denver will be as enjoyable as a root canal sans pain killers.

For now, however, viva Ron Paul Revolution! As mentioned earlier, his supporters won’t give up, grabbing over 15% of the vote in a meaningless primary. Hillary isn’t the one with a never-say-die attitude. It is the “Paultards,” as they are affectionately (or not) referred to at Wonkette. David Weigel, writing at Reason, adds:

Ron Paul will come out ofhis home state with around 127,000 votes, giving him around 974,000 votes total for the caucuses and primaries that have wrapped thus far. He’ll undoubtedly hit one million for the whole primary season: More than Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or John Edwards.

A great grab for him indeed.

John Tammy, writing an analysis of McCain’s Economic Policy at Real Clear Markets, had this interesting bit on the three remaining presidential candidates:

McCain, like seemingly every candidate in this cycle, has not picked up on the basic truth that oil and gas are expensive precisely because the dollar is weak.

That no one with a shot at the White House has addressed this basic issue speaks to how uninspiring this election will be.

For those of us that vote primarily on economics, second and third priorities will be where our decision lies this fall, unless one or more of the candidates do some serious re-tooling of their policies.

UPDATE @ 11:15a: Larry Kudlow asks whether one of the candidates will differentiate themselves with a strong dollar policy. That candidate looks to gain support from voters with economic priorities, as well as European central bankers.