Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary

Getting It Reversed

Arthur Brooks says that liberals are heartless. Errrr…sort of. Anyway, you might be able to say they’re mean spirited.

Let’s dispense with righteous rhetoric and look at what really counts: behavior, starting at the level of heart in personal relationships. Consider two groups of people under age 30: those who say they are liberal or extremely liberal, and those who say they are conservative or extremely conservative. According to General Social Survey in 2004, liberal young Americans are significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones. For example, progressives under 30 are significantly less likely than young right-wingers to say they would prefer to suffer rather than let the one they love suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for the one they love. (The practical implication of this is that you might want your daughter to marry a Republican.)

Political Commentary

Spiderwoman

What does Spiderman creator Stan Lee have to do with Hillary?

“Doug from Upland” has the answer:

Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with legendary superhero creator Stan Lee. The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.

On the link above – 4th false FEC report – turn to page 34. You will see that a $225,000 in-kind contribution is attributed to Stan Lee personally.

Lee was very surpised when I told him that, on the 4th FEC report from the Hillary 2000 campaign, he is listed as the largest donor — $225,000. He could not understand how that could be. He has testified under oath that he never gave any money. He didn’t have any money to give. He told that to the FBI, to the FEC, and to the Justice Department.

Treasurer Andrew Grossman, Hillary, and, of course, David Kendall, know very well that this is the fourth fraudulent report. They know very well that Lee gave no money. This continuing crime is being pulled off in broad daylight, and the Justice Department does not seem to want to do anything about it.

That report is the 4th time that Andrew Grossman and Hillary Clinton have had the opportunity to tell the truth to the FEC. Four strikes and you’re out? Apparently, not in Hillary’s world.

As someone over there points out, if I were Stan Lee I’d sue her Highness for defamation of character, for accusing me of such a thing.

This is amusing as well:

Note: although Hillary has been removed as a defendant (it will be appealed) in the case Paul v. Clinton, she will be ordered to testify. She and her defendant husband are expected to be in Los Angeles for a sworn deposition in as soon as 60 days. Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?

No, actually. I have no recollection of that…

Political Commentary

An Interesting Question

What happened to Hillary’s books?

…here is a FASCINATING observation I have made. I have thus far seen NOT ONE of the Hillary books at either flea markets or thrift stores. Have you? Think about it. This book supposedly has MILLIONS of copies floating around out there and yet somehow they just don’t make their way thru the normal book recycling system like other books. So what happened to all the Hillary books?

…Could the vast majority of the Hillary books (except for the autographed copies sold for profit on eBay) end up in warehouses? That is my suspicion and most likely they are still SITTING there. And who bought those books only to warehouse them? Labor unions? Other organizations? Using Freakonomics observations makes me suspicious that Hillary has received campaign contributions via PHONY book sales.

Someone might want to look into this. But most won’t.

Political Commentary

Bush Was Right

Amidst all of the media hyperventilating over the Bush “leaks,” the WaPo actually has a sensible editorial today. The post title is its first three words:

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity. Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame’s name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak’s two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby’s indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It’s unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.