Executive Speechwriting: Corporate, Weddings, Retirement

Friday, June 29, 2007

Anne Coulter: Doth the Dems Protest Too Much?

Anne Coulter, the bane of all things liberal, or so she thinks, is not known for her great diplomatic gestures.
  • Sweet speaking? No.
  • Kind? No.
  • Ogled by middle-aged liberals and conservatives alike? Yes.
  • Good or bad for the Republicans? Dunno.

That's the question. Is she bad for Republicans? I used to think yes. Then, non-candidate John Edwards got on the anti-Anne Coulter bandwagon. As I see it, given Edwards is among the most liberal Democrats, his interest validates Coulter to Republicans.

This does not make Coulter right in her approach or ideas, just as her ideas are not by default wrong just because she hates liberals. It does mean that John Edwards campaign is desperate for votes, and used Coulter to stir up interest.

As Democrats go, I contend this is still a Hillary Clinton race, with a strong second by Barack Obama. The support is there, the money is there, the media is there. Edwards is about as important as when Alan Keyes ran against Obama in illinois -- lots of noise, but not a chance.

John Edwards is, ironically, helping Republicans. As he is now sitting the chair of the third person in a two-person race, money that could go to supporting Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, is lining his coffers. Wasting money does no candidate any good, but, to those investing foolishly in Edwards, voters are the ones really losing. What does Anne Coulter get? Infamy, book sales, and the capacity to stir money from Obama to Edwards. She's the victor.

What if the vote was Anne Coulter against John Edwards? Who would win?

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

I'm Not Selling Out, Just Selling Politics

Pure capitalism here. Here's how it works. Click through this ad to Amazon.com. You see a product you like, either immediately, or, after searching a little. Doesn't matter what it is it. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bob Dylan, Britney Spears, iPod, Harry Potter, a widescreen TV. So long as you click here. Then, buy it. I get a cut. You pay the same. It is the same as if you bought from Amazon.com directly.

You might see other ads here, not just Amazon products. If there's anything vaguely valuable on this blog, or somewhat interesting, please support us in this way. I'm just a poor writer trying to make a buck while tossing in my two cents about issues I think matter in this world. And, occasionally, I'm right.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Salman Rushdie: Should He Matter to Muslims?

The question of Salman Rushdie continues. Mostly, it has fallen into the same crowd who thinks Osama bin Laden is a good man (or is it Usama?). The average Muslim is more enlightened, from what I am reading, and, although they are quietly not protesting for or against, they are looking toward other issues.

Interesting piece: Flippant Thoughts On Sir Salman. It is written by a Muslim who contends it is much ado about nothing. He is serious about his faith, yet believes Muslims are not only wasting their time focusing on this issue when compared to greater matters at hand, and:

For some Muslims, burning flags and effigies (and, in come cases, even embassies) seems to be the preferred method to respond to an offence of religious sensibilities. It’s as if we think the best way to protest the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) is to disobey him!
It seems to me, a Christian, that the violent protests against Rushdie are something some Muslims feel they can engage in, especially if they are otherwise powerless economically or politically. Like England's soccer hooligans, or those people who begged for Bill Clinton's impeachment -- it is ultimately inconsequential (except perhaps to Sir Rushdie), making an impact forgotten in the midst of the smoke from burnt flags and books.

Christians in America had a similar crisis a few years ago, when the movie "Last Temptation of Christ" came out. Somewhat popular in its own right, the protests vaulted into a symbol for both sides. Christians protested it because of a larger issue - they felt Hollywood was bastardizing all they felt to be holy. The message in the movie was considered blasphemous, but eventually, they realized what they believed would not change because of a movie. They believed that Jesus Christ's life - his values, message, etc., could not be threatened by one movie (or a thousand).

It is easy to lose focus, to sublimate a symbol into reality. Isn't that a temptation of post modernism?

As elections approach, and we look at candidates, I hope we get past personas, biases prejudices and other kinds of hogwash. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have only been a dumb Southern hick, and not an Oxford scholar. Hillary Clinton would be elected (or not) just because she is female, and, likewise, Barack Obama elected (or not) just because he is black, and Fred Thompson elected just because he looks like a president.

Bigger issues are at hand.

Issues: I Got 'Em

I've got issues.

  • Iraq, and the terrorism question, is a big one. I think, no matter what the campaign speeches say, we are staying in Iraq for another several years.
  • I do not think the North Korea issue is over.
  • I'm not worried about the economy - I believe in capitalism, and that the market will right itself.
  • Gas prices do not bother me: maybe we will learn to use alternate transportation.
  • I do not think abortion should be legal, but I am not sure the next president can make a difference without Congressional support.
  • I do not think executing criminals should be legal, but, like abortion, do not think this will change in the next term.
  • I do think religious freedom in America is a big issue, but I also think modern Americans have become too afraid of speaking their mind about their faith. That's their problem, not the White House's. Use it or lose it.
  • I do think we need to be vigilant about air quality. Smoke and chemicals go somewhere. What impact they have is a scientific argument, and I'm not equipped with a position or capacity to argue.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Obama Mixes Politics With Religion While Criticizing Conservatives

Obama accuses conservative religious leaders of 'hijacking' faith

Forgetting, it seems the photo ops in churches of Jesse "Reverend" Jackson, John Kerry and Bill Clinton during elections, the noteworthy and often articulated faith of President Jimmy Carter, and the amazing faith and life of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (never known as having been shy about his faith), Barack Obama has claimed there has been a hijacking of faith by conservatives. Some conservatives.

Obama spoke with intensity at a United Church of Christ. The United Church of Christ, as a denomination, is consider theologically and socially liberal, more than almost any other mainline Protestant denomination. It is considered part of the "social gospel" belief system by some.

Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, on Chicago's south side, where they teach liberation theology, a highly controversial mix of politics and religion.

Hillary Clinton's, on paper, a United Methodist, but her beliefs have never really made the news. When they do, you'll be able to read about it here.

How 'Some' Muslims Want You to Sell Your Soul

Pakistani traders put £80000 bounty on Rushdie's head

You read that right. Some Muslim Pakistani whack jobs feel the only way to get other Muslims to listen is to buy their faith. Faith, in being best shown by action, really can never be purchased. Actions, pretending to be faith-motivated, can be purchased, just as anyone can be hired to do a job.

Naturally, selling your soul is a bad move in any faith, but, desperate to atone for some nana-poo-poo comments they feel Sir Salman Rushdie made in a book they never personally read (and much of the illiterate Arab Muslim world could not read) , they decided to whore out the so-called dignity of the guy they believe is a prophet.

Yes, it comes down to that. Harsh? Well, yes.

Why not offer no money, and some do-gooder, angry lackey will go all Tony Soprano on Sir Rushdie? Wasn't happening. It is easier to get someone to kill himself by running a plane full of people into a building New York City than it is to kill a writer known only to the literati before this. A fatwa offered by then kingpin Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wasn't enough. Apparently.

I don't know what Sir Rushdie should do. Hide, like Osama bin Laden, in the caves of the Middle East? Go on Oprah, and see if he can get his book into her famous "Oprah's Book Club"? Surely, he has no desire to take a bullet in the head from an Islamic zealot, but, in turn, hiding only proves terrorism has influence.

He survived this long, since February 14,1989, when the murder order was made.

If it turns out that some punk takes out Sir Rushdie, expect a backlash, supporting freedom's newest martyr. Bad PR, I say.

Since I heard there's boycott against British goods, I need to find out how I can purchase as many British things as possible. Cadbury chocolate? Dr. Who? If I see the musical Spamalot, or buy a Monty Python DVD, will that count? I really have no idea what is officially British and available in the United States.

None of this presumes I agree with Sir Rushdie, or think he should have been knighted. I don't know. I have never read his works, and this includes "The Satanic Verses." My thoughts are based on the reaction, the motivation, the hate, and the violence suggested, and the attempt to manipulate others into tolerating their own intolerance.

None of this presumes either that I believe every Muslim thinks this way, or supports the hate crime mentality against Sir Rushdie, just as I do not believe every prolife person supports those whack jobs who tries to blow up a Planned Parenthood abortion shop, or that every anti-fur person supports PETA's screwball activities.

The Presidential Question
The everlasting question is -- which candidate running for president will know what to do on January 20, 2009, when he or she takes office? This is bigger than all the lesser questions, like gender, personal faith, party affiliation, experience, and what part of the USA did they grow up in. This one is about leadership and wisdom. Do they know what to do, and, are they able to get it done?

No election, in my opinion, matters more than this one. All the usual reasons for picking who to vote for have become inconsequential.

See: Ruhollah Khomeini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friday, June 22, 2007

Moore, Gore Missing from Top Movies of All Time

The Top Movies of All Time list has been released. Remarkably absent? All Michael Moore movies, including SiCKO and Fahrenheit 911. Missing also was that Al Gore flick,
An Inconvenient Truth.

Doesn't anyone recognize these two filmmakers are creative kin to Orsen Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese? Steven Spielberg has nothing on Moore.


Thursday, June 21, 2007

French-Canadian Pop Singer Celine Dion to Sing the Song of Hillary

Voters did not choose an American. Not just any Canadian, but a French-Canadian.

What do I say? Don't start believing.

Rumors of Hillary's potential running mates include Mick Jagger (a shoo-in as president of vice) and, if not Sir Mick, then Nicolas Sarkozy, that Hungarian-named French president who will be looking for a real job next year once he finds out how weak his health benefits are.

Voters pick Celine to join Hillary's campaign
Telegraph.co.uk - 23 hours ago
By Alex Spillius Supporters of Hillary Clinton will only have themselves to blame if they become bored with Celine Dion over the coming months, after choosing a hit by the Canadian singer to be the US presidential hopeful's official campaign song.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Soprano's spoof/parody

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Soprano's spoof/parody

Is this a wise, foolish, or indifferent thing for a presidential candidate to do?

Mitt Romney's a Mormon? So what.

While the basic tenets of Mormonism can be criticized, they are not key to the election, any more than Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are Southern Baptists.

We all know there's quite a row about Bush's faith, which, theologically, is the same as Clinton's and Obama's. Whatever frailties Romney's theology has, isn't he, in America, free to believe in the god of his choice

re: Some Mormons Worry as Faith Comes Under Scrutiny
Mitt Romney's Presidential Rivals Have Used His Mormon Faith for Negative Campaigning

Long live Sir Rushdie! Long live freedom of faith! Let freedom ring!

re: Britain responds in Rushdie knighthood row

This is the world Hillary Clinton will inherit, one in which tolerance is expected to be one-sided, in which Islamic tyranny breathes heavily, panting with lust in Iran.

If violence is needed to protect the prophet's honor, he has no honor.

How feeble is the Koran that it cannot withstand scrutiny?

How insecure are Islam's faithful that the disbelief of another person causes rage?

How petty can someone be to think a few scratches in a newspaper are offensive to someone they believe knows Allah?

Are these really offensive, or just an excuse to vent prepubescent angst?

Long live Sir Rushdie! Long live freedom of faith! Let freedom ring!

Monday, June 18, 2007

Hillary Could Ace the Primaries, Lose the General Election

Various polls are claiming Hillary, and Democrats in general, would lose to specific leading Republicans. I've mentioned this issue previously. Though all of these polls are void in so much as it is too early to be naming winners and losers, it indicates a troubling trend.

This challenge amazes me. While it is good to see that voters are seeing through partisan affiliations, they also seem to not know what they think.

No surprise with Rudy G, since, as Republicans go, he's pretty liberal. Same with Romney, for opposite reasons. But why is Hillary so popular, yet unelectable?

In Polls, Clinton Loses to Republicans


Friday, June 15, 2007

Billy Graham, Ruth Graham - Why They Matter to Hillary Clinton

Mrs. Ruth Graham has died. She was more famously known as Mrs. Billy Graham. She was 87.

Why this matters to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Or, to Barack Obama's campaign, or any among the Republicans running for president?

In many ways, he's retired. Ruth's death only magnifies this. The next president is likely to be "Billy Graham free."

Billy's 88. In 2008, then, he'll be at least 89. With Ruth Graham's passing, a woman Billy has remained devoted to since he met her in the lawn of the esteemed Wheaton College, he may simply not be himself. His own health is faltering.

Billy has been counsel to all American presidents since Eisenhower. While he no doubt offered spiritual insight and prayer, he also offered friendship, and the kind of advice and support which comes from a friend. Presidents have few friends who aren't pushing a political agenda.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush share in common a great respect for Graham, and cite him as a major influence in their spiritual life. With Jimmy Carter, they all recently joined together to help christen the Billy Graham Library.

I saw Billy Graham at a Crusade once. He's the real deal. He's sincere, and is not about the Almighty Buck. Not all evangelists are as inclusive, as diversely thinking, and as committed to something bigger than themselves as him. In fact, noting the need for Christian ministries to have honest finances, he helped found Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).

What Ruth Graham's death represents is the beginning of the end of an era. Billy's still around, but not the jet-setter he once was. This is a sad day for him.

Hillary, Obama, and rest aren't losing God. If they believe, they believe. Graham's not God. He never claimed to be. And, if they believe, losing Graham will not be losing their only counsel. Hillary Clinton, until recently, never claimed to be anything more than an occasional church-goer. She has never said, unlike husband Bill, that Christ is an important part of her life. She is, for all intents and purposes, a practical atheist.

The jury is still out on Obama. It looks like he has a faith in Jesus Christ, but how deep is hard to say. How much of his faith is wrought of looking to God to solve Man's problems, and how much is wrought looking to Man to solve God's problems is known only to Barack Obama and to God Himself.

But, he was born August 4, 1961, meaning while he grew up probably very aware of Billy Graham, any personal connection to him is unlikely. George W Bush met him through his father, and later, as he sought out his own spiritual renewal. Obama had no such process, and has not had familial connections.

What Hillary and Obama are losing, though, is the tradition of Graham's counsel. That tradition is, in a sense, extending back far before Graham, but to the original settlers who came for religious freedom. We aren't losing that freedom to believe, but, with major voices as respected as Billy Graham's no longer in the big picture, the White House will seem, perhaps, more secular. No one wants a state run religion, and no one wants a president with a phony, politically convenient faith. However, if they do have a true faith, we want them to be wise in its context. Billy Graham offered that wisdom, albeit imperfectly.

Home is Where the Wallet Is - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama Divide for Dollars in Chicago

Hillary Clinton, born in the upscale, posh burb of Chicago, Park Ridge, IL, and for her adult life, resident of Arkansas, and Washington DC. In the last several years, she has lived in New York, where she opened the northeastern branch of her campaign as NY State Senator.

So what's home?

Hawaiian-born Barack Obama, who lives in Chicago and is a former state senator. Hawaii.

So what's home?

Home is wherever is convenient, wherever has donors, wherever has voters. Home is, after all, wherever your heart is.

Where do they hang their hat? Whole nuther question.

Cynicism aside, they are here both to raise money. They'll need it for the next few months of increasingly heavy campaigning. Ad dollars are now needed to feed the so-called grass roots campaigns online, as well as all the usual media outlets.

Clinton, Obama Fight for Chicago
Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't ceding her one-time Chicago home turf to Illinois senator Barack Obama. Born and raised in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, she is relying on the help of the state's wealthy and connected. High-profile attorneys ...

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Barack Obama Faces More of the Same Tony Rezko Trouble

In the eking problem which will not go away, it seems that Barack Obama's claims to naivete are not quite true.

Obama's letters for Rezko: NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer's deal (Chicago Sun-Times)

"As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

"The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district."

This may become another Bill Clinton problems. Bill's trouble wasn't that he was fooling around with White House slut intern Monica Lewinsky, but that he lied under oath. Politicians have never been known as people of character, so the dalliance he had with Monica was no big deal. Hillary (his wife) didn't care. Republicans pretended to, but it was the lie that caused him most grief, not the action he was getting.

Barack Obama's trouble in not infidelity. Seems to me that in this regard, he is a man of honor. It could be that, however, Rezko, mixed with the growing obviousness that Obama never intended to serve Illinois as Senator but as US President, that will cause him problems.

Hopefully, if it is truly a minor blunder, Obama will fess up and move. The only way voters will care in 2008 is if Rezko comes up with a blue dress.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Fred Thompson vs Barack Obama (vs Hillary Clinton)

Will Hillary's top challenger be Fred Thompson?

Thompson, who has yet to officially announce he is running, is Hillary's opposite: he's conservative, well-liked by all sides, and, most significantly, not losing ground to Barack Obama.

Thompson's stock value is rising. Hillary is not losing value as much as Obama is taking over the leftover. This adds up. Obama has only flirted with the Democratic lead, but it should be enough to scare the previously complacent Hillary Clinton campaign.

What this means is that Hillary and Obama have a problem. To run in November, someone needs to win in the primaries. Obvious? Yes, yes. What will happen to get there?

The fight now is Obama-Hilary. John Edwards has fallen into the cult following by hefty, horn-rimmed glassed women who love to worship a dreamy-eyed liberal. So, Edwards is now just a speech giver and radio talk show guest. Obama has momentum, but it is far too early to call it. Hillary, on the other hand, has fire power, and connections Obama is too new to have. Expect each to play their strengths and flop the top position.

What worries me is the dirty work. To win, someone must lose. To win, scandals will be brought up so that a loser may be declared. Hillary has more than her fair share of scandals, but, slowly leaking out is that Obama has made a few unholy alliances. While the Tony Rezko story is relatively unimportant, it may inspire a buck reporter to dig a little deeper. The Hillary Clinton campaign might even help provide information.

Let's say Obama wins the primary. He'll stumble into the general election already bruised and road weary. The press might be tired of beating on the conservatives, and know their readers have heard it all. If Fred Thompson is the Republican candidate, the media simply might not have anything new to say about him. He might be a better version of Bush, and brighter at the podium. So, they pick on Obama. He's clean, fresh -- or is he? The Rezko story might flower into something dirty, like mob work, corruption, bribes, or may fizzle into something that was a mistake and nothing more.

If, though, he's got a cachet of trouble, and has spent dollars fighting these issues with Hillary, he might not have enough bullets to fight Thompson.

Hillary's war chest, I'll guess, is deeper, and can survive a battle financially. She might arrive as victor (or do we say victoria?) in November. Her marketing people are working double time to make her appear as a mix of Martha Stewart, and my gossipy next door neighbor, while trying to balance that with her image as a blood thirsty Republican killer. Obama has no choice but to run a simpler campaign, but, has fewer complexities in his life, his leadership and his political experience.

For the Democrats, a clear victor needs to be established early enough so that they can regroup to beat the Republican candidate. If they don't, they should know that the Republicans will be ready, organized, motivated, and ready to win as the underdog. If the Republicans become the underdog, and aren't parlayed by the Democrats as inevitable losers, they will lose.

See http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm