I was reading a Nov. 5th article by Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard that states that only two of the GOP Presidential candidates have credible scenario to win the nomination.
Those being Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. In his article, Barnes lays out the scenarios as so...
Guiliani's scenario: It begins with where Guiliani has been placing his focus...which has been select early primary states. While Iowa (Jan. 3rd) has not been a Rudy focal point, he has been campaigning hard in New Hampshire (Jan. 8th) and currently leads in South Carolina (Jan. 19th).
Guiliani has been pushing hard in Florida (Jan. 29th), and is doing well in all of the big states that will have elections on Super Duper Tuesday (Feb. 5th). Basically, Guiliani is looking to at least stay competitive early on, then break out from Florida and blow out the field on Super Duper Tuesday.
Romney's scenario: Romney has put his eggs into the early primary basket, especially Iowa and New Hampshire, and leads in both states in most polls. Romney also has an advantage in Michigan (Jan. 15th), where his father was once governor...and as Barnes points out, the other GOP candidates have practically ignored the state. Romney's plan is simple, win early and ride the momentum (and his deep pockets) from there.
Barnes also points out that no candidate in either party has ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire and still lost the nomination since 1972, when Democrat Edmund Muskie did just that.
Other Candidate Scenarios: Barnes also sees that John McCain and Fred Thompson have possible "winning scenarios", but both involve some help via some kind of serious misstep by Romney and/or Guiliani. McCain has been gaining in New Hampshire and is solid in South Carolina, but is lacking funds to make any kind of national push from there. Thompson has a shot at winning in South Carolina, but is not doing well at all in Iowa or New Hampshire. He would need a South Carolina win and a sweep of all the southern states on Super Tuesday to have a shot at the nomination...and even then, he would need some good showings in other states.
Barnes also believes that if Ron Paul were to run as the Libertarian candidate for President, he would gain more votes than any Libertarian candidate in history...not enough to be President, but plenty of votes nonetheless.
Any way you slice it, we're coming up on some interesting months for the GOP.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Fabio Slams George Clooney, Podium Laughs Heartily
More from the world of entertainment...
Recently, George Clooney and Fabio had a bit of an incident at a restaurant. Apparently, Clooney was having dinner at the restaurant and Fabio was attending a charity dinner at the same restaurant. Photographers were randomly popping by to take pictures of Fabio and his guests at the dinner.
Meanwhile, Clooney got all riled up thinking that the photographers were taking pictures of him (wow, talk about self-absorbed). Clooney began shouting insults at Fabio's guests, go so far as to call one of the women a "fat cow", which prompted Fabio to confront Clooney. Fabio showed Clooney that the photos taken were not of him, but of Fabio and his guests. Clooney settled down for a moment, before starting with the insults again. Fabio then got up to confront Clooney again, and Clooney fled immediately.
Did I mention that Clooney was described as looking "drunk and belligerent"?
Fabio recounted the evening for OK! magazine, and said this about Clooney and his actions...
“You have to be a low-class, scumbag to start calling a woman a name. If you’re a man, you should never. You should be a gentleman. These women were with me and as a man I defend them. He was lucky he ran out of the restaurant. He’s not even half a man.”
WOW! Talk about laying the smackdown on George! I often have a laugh at Fabio's expense...but I think he would have honestly knocked Clooney's salt-and-peppered head clean off his shoulders.
The Podium has always conceded that George Clooney is a very good actor. However, the Podium has also always had questioned Clooney's personal character. Looks like we had good reason to do so.
Recently, George Clooney and Fabio had a bit of an incident at a restaurant. Apparently, Clooney was having dinner at the restaurant and Fabio was attending a charity dinner at the same restaurant. Photographers were randomly popping by to take pictures of Fabio and his guests at the dinner.
Meanwhile, Clooney got all riled up thinking that the photographers were taking pictures of him (wow, talk about self-absorbed). Clooney began shouting insults at Fabio's guests, go so far as to call one of the women a "fat cow", which prompted Fabio to confront Clooney. Fabio showed Clooney that the photos taken were not of him, but of Fabio and his guests. Clooney settled down for a moment, before starting with the insults again. Fabio then got up to confront Clooney again, and Clooney fled immediately.
Did I mention that Clooney was described as looking "drunk and belligerent"?
Fabio recounted the evening for OK! magazine, and said this about Clooney and his actions...
“You have to be a low-class, scumbag to start calling a woman a name. If you’re a man, you should never. You should be a gentleman. These women were with me and as a man I defend them. He was lucky he ran out of the restaurant. He’s not even half a man.”
WOW! Talk about laying the smackdown on George! I often have a laugh at Fabio's expense...but I think he would have honestly knocked Clooney's salt-and-peppered head clean off his shoulders.
The Podium has always conceded that George Clooney is a very good actor. However, the Podium has also always had questioned Clooney's personal character. Looks like we had good reason to do so.
Harris for Senate...?
Adam Sharp over at Whackjob poses an interesting scenario that points out the advantage of a Paul Harris run for John Warner's soon-to-be-open Senate seat, and how a well-run Harris campaign would give Dem darling Mark Warner fits.
I can't say I know much about Paul Harris, but it seems like I should at least go and find out more about him.
I can't say I know much about Paul Harris, but it seems like I should at least go and find out more about him.
Legislative Hullabaloo Over ICE Costume Flap
Julie Myers, currently the acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has climbed very far against difficult odds to get to where she is. She did not have incredible amounts of experience in the field of immigration enforcement, but she has done a magnificent job of reigning in the ICE and making it a more efficient entity.
She is currently up for nomination to be permanently appointed to the position. However, that nomination is looking a bit cloudy.
At the agency's Halloween party, she and two other officials gave a "most original costume" award to a white employee who came in wearing a prison outfit with dreadlocked hair and darkened skin. This was leaked to the public soon afterwards, and Myers issued an immediate apology.
Now, reading that description, one would get a sense of racial insensitivity by the employee and by the judges (including Myers). However, I begin to wonder what this costume looked like. I mean, was he trying to look black? Or, was he trying to look like someone who hadn't had a haircut or their hair combed in years...and had been running away and hiding out in the woods, where dirt would have darkened their skin.
Think about it for a second. None of us have seen what this costume looked like, so we can only go by the simple descriptions.
Now, we don't know what's going to happen with the nomination process of Myers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry "Weasel" Reid (D-Nv.)hasn't scheduled any hearings or votes on her nomination. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) was a Myers supporter, but now believes it would be better to go with "non-controversial" leadership. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.)both believe that Myers is sincere in her apology, and would still make an excellent director of ICE. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is pretty much using this as icing on the cake as to why Myers should not be nominated, although McCaskill was staunchly against her nomination in the first place.
Myers received praise and endorsement from the National Association of African-Americans in the Department of Homeland Security for her efforts and commitments to black employees of the DHS. Apparently, even black people who work for Myers find her to be a fine candidate and not of a racist bent.
This shouldn't really be made into such a larger issue, especially when the supposedly offended parties aren't offended...Myers' record as acting director of ICE should prove as
She is currently up for nomination to be permanently appointed to the position. However, that nomination is looking a bit cloudy.
At the agency's Halloween party, she and two other officials gave a "most original costume" award to a white employee who came in wearing a prison outfit with dreadlocked hair and darkened skin. This was leaked to the public soon afterwards, and Myers issued an immediate apology.
Now, reading that description, one would get a sense of racial insensitivity by the employee and by the judges (including Myers). However, I begin to wonder what this costume looked like. I mean, was he trying to look black? Or, was he trying to look like someone who hadn't had a haircut or their hair combed in years...and had been running away and hiding out in the woods, where dirt would have darkened their skin.
Think about it for a second. None of us have seen what this costume looked like, so we can only go by the simple descriptions.
Now, we don't know what's going to happen with the nomination process of Myers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry "Weasel" Reid (D-Nv.)hasn't scheduled any hearings or votes on her nomination. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) was a Myers supporter, but now believes it would be better to go with "non-controversial" leadership. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.)both believe that Myers is sincere in her apology, and would still make an excellent director of ICE. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is pretty much using this as icing on the cake as to why Myers should not be nominated, although McCaskill was staunchly against her nomination in the first place.
Myers received praise and endorsement from the National Association of African-Americans in the Department of Homeland Security for her efforts and commitments to black employees of the DHS. Apparently, even black people who work for Myers find her to be a fine candidate and not of a racist bent.
This shouldn't really be made into such a larger issue, especially when the supposedly offended parties aren't offended...Myers' record as acting director of ICE should prove as
Friday, November 16, 2007
Imagine That...
Yesterday, I blogged about how Ron Paul may be this generation's Barry Goldwater.
Today, Paul gets endorsed by Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Am I good or what ;)
(h/t Below The Beltway)
Today, Paul gets endorsed by Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Am I good or what ;)
(h/t Below The Beltway)
Music Supporting The Troops
This is a nice change from the usual anti-military entertainment industry crap.
John Ondrasik (Five for Fighting) has been put together a compilation album that will be a musical "Thanks" for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CD is entitled, simply "CD For The Troops".
The artists on this album are some pretty big names in their genres: Billy Joel, Brooks and Dunn, Goo Goo Dolls, Jewel, Josh Groban, Los Lonely Boys, Melissa Ethridge, the Neville Brothers, Sarah McLachlan, the Lt. Dan Band, Montgomery Gentry, The Fray, and of course Five for Fighting.
While I have to admit that there are some names on that list that aren't really my cup of tea in terms of music (I'm not a huge Josh Groban or Five for Fighting fan, same goes for the Neville Brothers), but I think I will at least make a few trips to iTunes this weekend and show a little extra support for the ones I do like and purchase a few more songs. It's my way of saying "thank you" to these artists who decided to say "thank you" to our brave men and women of the military.
John Ondrasik (Five for Fighting) has been put together a compilation album that will be a musical "Thanks" for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CD is entitled, simply "CD For The Troops".
The artists on this album are some pretty big names in their genres: Billy Joel, Brooks and Dunn, Goo Goo Dolls, Jewel, Josh Groban, Los Lonely Boys, Melissa Ethridge, the Neville Brothers, Sarah McLachlan, the Lt. Dan Band, Montgomery Gentry, The Fray, and of course Five for Fighting.
While I have to admit that there are some names on that list that aren't really my cup of tea in terms of music (I'm not a huge Josh Groban or Five for Fighting fan, same goes for the Neville Brothers), but I think I will at least make a few trips to iTunes this weekend and show a little extra support for the ones I do like and purchase a few more songs. It's my way of saying "thank you" to these artists who decided to say "thank you" to our brave men and women of the military.
Chichester: Dems Will Keep Taxing Virg...er, Keep Things in the "Center"
Retiring RINO Senator John Chichester, who is most famous for leading the charge that supported Mark Warner's tax increase a few years ago and attempting to raise taxes again this year, stated that it will be the Democrats who will "keep things in the center and keep the bipartisan spirit".
Right, because increasing taxes and creating new reasons to spend money and then further increase taxes is really what Virginia wants.
Thank God Chichester is gone.
Right, because increasing taxes and creating new reasons to spend money and then further increase taxes is really what Virginia wants.
Thank God Chichester is gone.
This "Kill The Payday Lenders" Stuff Has Gotta Go
Whatever happened to just running an honest business with intent to make a profit? Isn't that part of capitalism?
Well, it is...as long as you're not a payday lender.
I don't understand why people want to ban payday lending, or cap their interest rates at a set percentage. Simply put, there isn't a very valid argument for this.
This op-ed at The New Dominion makes me laugh. To quote this person...
It’s incomprehensible to me how any company can be so unconscionable as to charge $15 in interest per pay period, even when one is paid weekly, on every $100 borrowed. Talk about usury!
So that means they're only making $15 gross for every $100 lent if a customer pays them back on time. Considering you have employees to pay, office space to rent, and utility bills...that's not really a lot of money per customer. To put it in perspective, if I'm a payday lender, and I lend out $25,000.00 in payday loans, and all of my customers pay me back on time, I make a gross profit of $3,750.00. Let's remember that lending money to people is a risky business, as you don't know that they're going to pay you back.
Plus, IT'S ONLY $15!!! Geez, that's 1 less case of beer, or 3 less of those $5 scratch-off tickets, or 2-3 less extra value meals at McDonalds!
Where the added profit comes in is regarding the people who are irresponsible enough not to make a payment.
Now, if you have a legitimate reason/hardship as to why you cannot repay your debt, that's perfectly understandable, and there should be a system in place to work that out. However, many times, people run to payday lenders because it's quick and easy cash, and don't plan on budgeting for repayment.
But then again, is the inability of the customer to budget their money for repayment of a debt the fault of the lender?
Unlike many people who pass judgment on payday lending, I've actually USED payday lending on more than one occasion. Life throws you curveballs, and sometimes you don't have the funds available at that moment. I always knew that, when I got the loan, I would have to pay it back...and I budgeted accordingly. Sometimes, that may lead to taking out a smaller loan when you repay the first one, and you "stair-step" yourself back into a normal budget. It worked for me, and I can assure that I am not financially affluent by any means.
Stephen Winslow, whom I agree with on many issues, used to run a payday lending store. Now, he rails against the industry as some kind of source of monetary evil. He likes to use the fact that he had seen a couple of his customers go through bankruptcy, and one couple get divorced, and he blames payday lending for it.
Personally, I believe that if you're declaring bankruptcy or getting a divorce, an unpaid payday loan is not the real source of your problems. Your financial or marital life was probably struggling before you took out the loan.
Well, it is...as long as you're not a payday lender.
I don't understand why people want to ban payday lending, or cap their interest rates at a set percentage. Simply put, there isn't a very valid argument for this.
This op-ed at The New Dominion makes me laugh. To quote this person...
It’s incomprehensible to me how any company can be so unconscionable as to charge $15 in interest per pay period, even when one is paid weekly, on every $100 borrowed. Talk about usury!
So that means they're only making $15 gross for every $100 lent if a customer pays them back on time. Considering you have employees to pay, office space to rent, and utility bills...that's not really a lot of money per customer. To put it in perspective, if I'm a payday lender, and I lend out $25,000.00 in payday loans, and all of my customers pay me back on time, I make a gross profit of $3,750.00. Let's remember that lending money to people is a risky business, as you don't know that they're going to pay you back.
Plus, IT'S ONLY $15!!! Geez, that's 1 less case of beer, or 3 less of those $5 scratch-off tickets, or 2-3 less extra value meals at McDonalds!
Where the added profit comes in is regarding the people who are irresponsible enough not to make a payment.
Now, if you have a legitimate reason/hardship as to why you cannot repay your debt, that's perfectly understandable, and there should be a system in place to work that out. However, many times, people run to payday lenders because it's quick and easy cash, and don't plan on budgeting for repayment.
But then again, is the inability of the customer to budget their money for repayment of a debt the fault of the lender?
Unlike many people who pass judgment on payday lending, I've actually USED payday lending on more than one occasion. Life throws you curveballs, and sometimes you don't have the funds available at that moment. I always knew that, when I got the loan, I would have to pay it back...and I budgeted accordingly. Sometimes, that may lead to taking out a smaller loan when you repay the first one, and you "stair-step" yourself back into a normal budget. It worked for me, and I can assure that I am not financially affluent by any means.
Stephen Winslow, whom I agree with on many issues, used to run a payday lending store. Now, he rails against the industry as some kind of source of monetary evil. He likes to use the fact that he had seen a couple of his customers go through bankruptcy, and one couple get divorced, and he blames payday lending for it.
Personally, I believe that if you're declaring bankruptcy or getting a divorce, an unpaid payday loan is not the real source of your problems. Your financial or marital life was probably struggling before you took out the loan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
