Yesterday I wrote this post discussing how Rhode Island Democratic Senator Whitehouse made comments on CNBC fully consistent with abrogating the rights of shareholders in major American oil companies by forcing them to allocate their capital according to Congress' desires.
After I wrote that piece, Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Hardin chimed in with even more stupidity.
In a late-day interview on CNBC with Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Hardin demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of economics in general, and global energy economics in particular. Truly, this man must be an embarrassment to his state and the voters who elected him.
One of Ms. Caruso-Cabrera's salient attributes is her keen grasp of economics. Another is her absolute disregard for the discomfort she will cause with her questions. Both were on view in her interview with Hardin yesterday.
When Ms. Caruso-Cabrera asked Hardin how the US Senate could hope to control, let alone influence, the price of oil, when consumers in China and India are buying and driving more cars each month, consuming more and more gasoline and, thus, oil, Hardin had no effective reply, other than to allege that 'suppliers were colluding.'
When the CNBC anchor noted that the Senate had failed to act on initiatives to open US lands in Anwar to drilling, or our own shelves, thus opening us to criticism from the Saudis that we demanded of them what we won't do for ourselves, Hardin replied that 'now the problem is to bring down the price of oil for our less wealthy citizens,' or words to that effect.
As I have noted in the prior post, by way of a linked post on my business blog, it simply makes no sense to believe that because a company like Exxon or Chevron is dominant in oil, it should therefore invest heavily in unrelated energy technologies such as wind or solar.
This is a point that Hardin, like his colleagues Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Sheldon Whitehouse all fail to understand. From their comments during their witch hunt among American oil company CEOs yesterday, they clearly were more interested in grandstanding than in hearing the truth about global oil economics.
Back to Ms. Caruso-Cabrera's interview. By shrewdly asking questions which pointed to the global nature of demand for oil, its price being set by global supply and demand, and the US Congress' failure to allow for maximum oil and gas production onshore and offshore near the US coasts, she allowed Hardin to demonstrate his focus on demonizing oil companies, rather than truly searching for solutions.
If Hardin and his Democratic colleagues were really concerned about the effects of global oil prices on the less-fortunate among America's consumers, they could easily write legislation to provide a tax credit to lower-income consumers, based upon either their gasoline purchases, or some average gasoline consumption value, which kicked in above a designated price for a gallon of gasoline- perhaps $3.50. In effect, the Congress could choose to hedge gasoline prices for poor Americans, and borrow in capital markets to pay these drivers the excess of gasoline prices over what is a target set by Congress.
What will never work is for Congress to attempt to levy 'excess profits' taxes on oil companies. Durbin et. al. excoriated oil company executives for charging high prices for gasoline and 'maximizing profits' for their shareholders.
What do they expect? Do they really think these CEOs of shareholder-owned oil companies are going to turn socialist and subsidize American drivers to the detriment of those shareholders?
More enlightened production policies for oil and natural gas by both parties in Congress years ago would have lessened this global oil situation. Now, it's too late for a quick fix.
The best that can be hoped for is a Simon-esque rise in energy production, both oil and substitute fuels, brought about by the high prices being currently fetched for the liquid commodity.
The worst is to let the idiotic, stupid Democratic Senators loose with energy 'policy' that will likely reduce oil supplies and further complicate an already difficult global energy situation.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sheldon Whitehouse Wants To Nationalize America's Oil Companies
This morning on CNBC, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse aired his views on why the US Senate should be directing America's oil companies on how to spend their investment capital.
Though he attempted to deny it, he commented several times during a discussion with the CNBC co-anchors and another guest that oil companies' shareholders' interests were subordinate to those of Congress.
Among Whitehouse's 'ideas' are, of course, Congressional mandates for oil company spending on non-petroleum projects and Federal funding of a 'green economy.'
Can you say "illegal takings," Sheldon? Or "appropriation of private property?"
As I wrote in this post on my companion business blog earlier this month,
"ExxonMobil is now a public company. Isn't it the height of arrogance for the great-grandchildren of the company's founder to be dictating strategy to this very successful petroleum-based energy giant?
Additionally, as I wrote in my BP post of last year, there's the question of why a current petroleum giant would have any particular advantage in wind or solar energy generation and transmission. It would seem that neither of these renewable energy sources share much of any technology with oil exploration, refining and distribution. Thus, it's a likely waste of shareholder resources for an oil firm to go chasing after other energy sources. This is precisely the type of mistake that Tillerson and his team should avoid, and prevent a small group of vocal environmentalists with an axe to grind, who happen to be the progeny of the company's founder, from forcing him to make, to the detriment of other shareholders.
Finally, there's Schumpeterian dynamics at work. As my February post noted, ExxonMobil is currently on the way to becoming more of a refiner and distributor of oil and its refined products, as it fails to find and own sufficient reserves to replace its recent production.
In the current environment of nationalistic lockups of oil reserves in the ground, it could well be that ExxonMobil pumps out its own petroleum assets, refines them and what it can buy on the open market, such as it will be, and perhaps even go out of business with one last large dividend, as its reason for being simply evaporates.
That's what happens to companies whose best operating environment and salient reason for being disappears. Then shareholders can use their proceeds to buy other equities which they feel may bring them consistently superior returns."
But, Sheldon Whitehouse is a liberal Democrat. Why would we think he'd look for a "solution" to current oil prices in market dynamics?
To begin with, Whitehouse doesn't seem to understand that market dynamics determine oil prices. Well, he alleges that oil prices are "too high" because of "speculation," suggesting that such buying and selling of oil futures is somehow bad. Is it illegal, too, Sheldon? Or, if not, will you be making it so ASAP?
Here's an idea, Sheldon. If you are so convinced that America needs more wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, why don't you and your upper-chamber-plurality Democratic colleagues pass legislation setting out clear tax preferences for such energy source for a defined time-period. While you're at it, pass legislation to allow drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWAR and off America's coastal shelves, easier construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and easier use of coal and natural gas for power generation?
Both parties have fumbled on these issues. Republicans should have siezed their opportunity when in the majority of both Congressional Houses and pushed such legislation through. Perhaps now that more Americans are concerned about energy prices and sources of supply, even liberal Democrats will come to their senses.
But if Sheldon Whitehouse is any sort of example, I think we'll be waiting a lot longer for this to occur.
Though he attempted to deny it, he commented several times during a discussion with the CNBC co-anchors and another guest that oil companies' shareholders' interests were subordinate to those of Congress.
Among Whitehouse's 'ideas' are, of course, Congressional mandates for oil company spending on non-petroleum projects and Federal funding of a 'green economy.'
Can you say "illegal takings," Sheldon? Or "appropriation of private property?"
As I wrote in this post on my companion business blog earlier this month,
"ExxonMobil is now a public company. Isn't it the height of arrogance for the great-grandchildren of the company's founder to be dictating strategy to this very successful petroleum-based energy giant?
Additionally, as I wrote in my BP post of last year, there's the question of why a current petroleum giant would have any particular advantage in wind or solar energy generation and transmission. It would seem that neither of these renewable energy sources share much of any technology with oil exploration, refining and distribution. Thus, it's a likely waste of shareholder resources for an oil firm to go chasing after other energy sources. This is precisely the type of mistake that Tillerson and his team should avoid, and prevent a small group of vocal environmentalists with an axe to grind, who happen to be the progeny of the company's founder, from forcing him to make, to the detriment of other shareholders.
Finally, there's Schumpeterian dynamics at work. As my February post noted, ExxonMobil is currently on the way to becoming more of a refiner and distributor of oil and its refined products, as it fails to find and own sufficient reserves to replace its recent production.
In the current environment of nationalistic lockups of oil reserves in the ground, it could well be that ExxonMobil pumps out its own petroleum assets, refines them and what it can buy on the open market, such as it will be, and perhaps even go out of business with one last large dividend, as its reason for being simply evaporates.
That's what happens to companies whose best operating environment and salient reason for being disappears. Then shareholders can use their proceeds to buy other equities which they feel may bring them consistently superior returns."
But, Sheldon Whitehouse is a liberal Democrat. Why would we think he'd look for a "solution" to current oil prices in market dynamics?
To begin with, Whitehouse doesn't seem to understand that market dynamics determine oil prices. Well, he alleges that oil prices are "too high" because of "speculation," suggesting that such buying and selling of oil futures is somehow bad. Is it illegal, too, Sheldon? Or, if not, will you be making it so ASAP?
Here's an idea, Sheldon. If you are so convinced that America needs more wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, why don't you and your upper-chamber-plurality Democratic colleagues pass legislation setting out clear tax preferences for such energy source for a defined time-period. While you're at it, pass legislation to allow drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWAR and off America's coastal shelves, easier construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and easier use of coal and natural gas for power generation?
Both parties have fumbled on these issues. Republicans should have siezed their opportunity when in the majority of both Congressional Houses and pushed such legislation through. Perhaps now that more Americans are concerned about energy prices and sources of supply, even liberal Democrats will come to their senses.
But if Sheldon Whitehouse is any sort of example, I think we'll be waiting a lot longer for this to occur.
Justice for Teddy
As Massachusetts's most famous unindicted man slaughterer- let's be charitable and not allege 'murderer'- lies in a hospital with a malignant brain tumor, I find myself unable to muster a scintilla of pity or sorrow.
From Teddy's youth, he's been a disappointment. Consider these points from a web bio on the decidedly senior Senator,
Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.
While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.
On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.
Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.
Since the accident, Kennedy's political enemies have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.
In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"
Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than four decades, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors.
So, before you get all teary-eyed and sad over the imminent demise of this uber-liberal, slothful, womanizing, hard-drinking Senator, refresh your memory of his privileged life, the damage he has done to others, and his hypocritical nature.
I'm not a big fan of those who judge every character flaw in politicians. But there is a place for the evaluation of a candidate's and elected official's character in some capacity. To me, the Tedster's rank, open hypocrisy has always grated.
A drinker to excess, driving his poor first wife, Joan, to the bottle, sporting a grotesquely unhealthy and obese physique, Teddy always seemed to me to be a walking example of someone who needed to get his own life under control before purporting to fix the lives of everyone on whom he could manage to spend taxpayers' money.
My only regret today is that Teddy wasn't diagnosed some years ago, so that a rare Republican governor in his state could replace him with a Senator from the GOP.
Other than that, I can't help but feel that justice of the Greek variety is being visited upon the Senate's only unindicted, untried direct perpetrator of the death of another person.
From Teddy's youth, he's been a disappointment. Consider these points from a web bio on the decidedly senior Senator,
Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.
While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.
On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.
Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.
Since the accident, Kennedy's political enemies have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.
In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"
Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than four decades, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors.
So, before you get all teary-eyed and sad over the imminent demise of this uber-liberal, slothful, womanizing, hard-drinking Senator, refresh your memory of his privileged life, the damage he has done to others, and his hypocritical nature.
I'm not a big fan of those who judge every character flaw in politicians. But there is a place for the evaluation of a candidate's and elected official's character in some capacity. To me, the Tedster's rank, open hypocrisy has always grated.
A drinker to excess, driving his poor first wife, Joan, to the bottle, sporting a grotesquely unhealthy and obese physique, Teddy always seemed to me to be a walking example of someone who needed to get his own life under control before purporting to fix the lives of everyone on whom he could manage to spend taxpayers' money.
My only regret today is that Teddy wasn't diagnosed some years ago, so that a rare Republican governor in his state could replace him with a Senator from the GOP.
Other than that, I can't help but feel that justice of the Greek variety is being visited upon the Senate's only unindicted, untried direct perpetrator of the death of another person.
Obama Whines About Michelle's Treatment in Tennessee
We saw some new evidence this week as to why the freshman Senator from Illinois, Obama, is still unready for the Oval Office.
Notice that not once in the ad is Michelle Obama directly assailed. Only her own words are broadcast.
Responding to this fair and legitimate ad, the junior Illinois Senator is now whining about opponents unfairly attacking his wife.
Let's be clear about two things.
First, Obama proudly trotted his wife out on the campaign trail, turning her loose to make her own remarks on his behalf. His choice- and hers. So he and his wife placed Obama's wife directly into the campaign.
Second, if Obama is whining about this non-negative ad, in the election campaign, what will he do in a real crisis? Call his mom? No, wait, remember, he told us she doesn't trust people of color.
This guy is clearly so far from ready for a real governmental job with actual responsibility that it's simply scary he's actually about to get his party's nomination.
It has nothing to do with race. He's a victim and a whiner.
Is that who you want making decisions of global importance in the Oval Office?
I didn't think so.
Several months ago, Obama's wife, Michelle, made some scathing remarks about her lack of pride in America, until her husband ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Leaving aside the self-serving, egotistical, spoiled nature of her remark, it says a lot about the woman's sense of America. The moment was captured in this video clip.
Notice that not once in the ad is Michelle Obama directly assailed. Only her own words are broadcast.
Responding to this fair and legitimate ad, the junior Illinois Senator is now whining about opponents unfairly attacking his wife.
Let's be clear about two things.
First, Obama proudly trotted his wife out on the campaign trail, turning her loose to make her own remarks on his behalf. His choice- and hers. So he and his wife placed Obama's wife directly into the campaign.
Second, if Obama is whining about this non-negative ad, in the election campaign, what will he do in a real crisis? Call his mom? No, wait, remember, he told us she doesn't trust people of color.
This guy is clearly so far from ready for a real governmental job with actual responsibility that it's simply scary he's actually about to get his party's nomination.
It has nothing to do with race. He's a victim and a whiner.
Is that who you want making decisions of global importance in the Oval Office?
I didn't think so.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Proper Forms of Address for Obama
While reading through the Sitemeter information on visitors to this blog recently, I happened to follow some of the links of Google searches for which my blog posts were highly rated and, thus, destinations.
One of the more popular topics was this post on Obama's lies about his tax plans for Americans, should we be unlucky enough to see him win in November.
On some of these other sites discussing Obama, I came across the following references to him:
"Rookie Senator from Illinois,"
"The junior Senator from Illinois," and
"Freshman Senator."
All of which are correct, appropriate, and thoroughly descriptive of this naive political snake oil salesman.
Forthwith, I intend to use any or all of these fine descriptors of the apparent Democratic Presidential nominee for November in my posts, the better to remind people just how inexperienced, unprepared and unfit for the office of President of the United States Obama is.
One of the more popular topics was this post on Obama's lies about his tax plans for Americans, should we be unlucky enough to see him win in November.
On some of these other sites discussing Obama, I came across the following references to him:
"Rookie Senator from Illinois,"
"The junior Senator from Illinois," and
"Freshman Senator."
All of which are correct, appropriate, and thoroughly descriptive of this naive political snake oil salesman.
Forthwith, I intend to use any or all of these fine descriptors of the apparent Democratic Presidential nominee for November in my posts, the better to remind people just how inexperienced, unprepared and unfit for the office of President of the United States Obama is.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama's The Appeaser
Last week's delightful statements regarding appeasement seem to have smoked out the real, appeasing Obama.
It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'
The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.
Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.
As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,
'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'
It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?
By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.
McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.
Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.
Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.
It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.
It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'
The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.
Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.
As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,
'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'
It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?
By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.
McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.
Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.
Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.
It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.
Upsetting The Apple Cart
Let's hope this never comes to pass, but if you really want to consider the most chaotic Presidential campaign scenario for 2008, you can't help but imagine the effects of an assassination of a Democratic convention-nominated Obama.
To be extremely clear about this, I abhor the use of violence in politics, no matter what the beliefs of a candidate. Political assassinations and attempts have scarred our Republic as long ago as Andrew Jackson's administration. Considering LBJ's ineptitude, Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and TR's progressive politics, these events have changed our country's path, though rarely for the better.
Still, one has to consider this unspoken possibility. Not that any major media source has touched this possibility. Nor do I think any of them will.
Talking with my partner about this earlier today, I was shocked that he considered this to be a very realistic scenario. Neither he, nor I, are opposed to a woman or ethnic minority President. But he cautioned me that some are not so open-minded.
Were Obama to be nominated, and then assassinated, what would the likely outcome be?
Well, first, you'd assume the Democrats would turn to Hillary to run in his place. The question here is, would she attract a large sympathy vote? Or would many who turned out for Obama now fade away, having rejected Hillary in the first place?
Could Hillary, with whatever sympathy vote, manage to beat McCain?
Or would McCain win, but be forever weakened by the shadow of his slain opponent?
We'd better hope nothing like this happens. There's simply no telling how explosive and unpredictable the political landscape could become, were the first minority nominee for President by a major party to be killed during the campaign for the November election.
To be extremely clear about this, I abhor the use of violence in politics, no matter what the beliefs of a candidate. Political assassinations and attempts have scarred our Republic as long ago as Andrew Jackson's administration. Considering LBJ's ineptitude, Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and TR's progressive politics, these events have changed our country's path, though rarely for the better.
Still, one has to consider this unspoken possibility. Not that any major media source has touched this possibility. Nor do I think any of them will.
Talking with my partner about this earlier today, I was shocked that he considered this to be a very realistic scenario. Neither he, nor I, are opposed to a woman or ethnic minority President. But he cautioned me that some are not so open-minded.
Were Obama to be nominated, and then assassinated, what would the likely outcome be?
Well, first, you'd assume the Democrats would turn to Hillary to run in his place. The question here is, would she attract a large sympathy vote? Or would many who turned out for Obama now fade away, having rejected Hillary in the first place?
Could Hillary, with whatever sympathy vote, manage to beat McCain?
Or would McCain win, but be forever weakened by the shadow of his slain opponent?
We'd better hope nothing like this happens. There's simply no telling how explosive and unpredictable the political landscape could become, were the first minority nominee for President by a major party to be killed during the campaign for the November election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
