Showing posts with label Voices from the Blogoshpere. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voices from the Blogoshpere. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

VOICES FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE: WHAT DID SHE GET FOR $20 MILLION?

The Big Feed is proud to present this article from the esteemed Robert Stacy McCain who writes for the blog, THE OTHER MCCAIN.

Reprinted with full permission.


What did She get for $20 million?


Hillary should demand a refund:

Clinton aides continued to insist that she will remain in the race even while confirming that she is $20 million in debt. "The voters are going to decide this," senior adviser Howard Wolfson said on "Fox News Sunday," acknowledging the $20 million figure. . .
As of a month ago, most of that debt was reportedly owed to the firm of former Clinton top strategist Mark Penn:
A source who has had close connections with Penn got word to me that he believes the Clinton campaign is $10 million in debt to Penn, Schoen & Berland, which is owned by Burson-Marsteller. The campaign's March report to the Federal Election Commission recorded indebtedness to the company of nearly $2.5 million (with its expenses for the month listed at $3.1 million).
My sources suggest that Clinton's full indebtedness may be revealed only gradually. This money link helps explain why Penn is still around even though organized labor demanded his scalp last summer and he is blamed inside the campaign for failing to perceive the public's demand for "change."
Just how much money Clinton owes Penn could cause major difficulties. If not repaid
promptly, would it constitute an illegal financial contribution? Because the British WPP owns Burson-Marsteller, would that debt constitute an illegal foreign contribution?
This is one of my pet peeves about political professionals in both parties. The top operatives get rich running campaigns, and they get paid whether the candidates win or lose. There is a built-in bias for operatives to respond to every problem in the campaign by saying, "The solution is to give me more money." The pollsters always want more money for polling, the media strategists want more money for ads, etc.

What results is a high "burn rate" -- spending campaign funds as fast, or faster, than they come in. These contributions often come from true-believer types, in response to "urgent" appeals to the effect of, "Help us save America!"

Those donors are getting ripped off, if that money goes mainly to line the pockets of some bigshot operative. And how can a candidates, in good conscience, ask students and housewives to work as unpaid volunteers while, at the same time, the campaign is pouring out millions in fat fees to expensive consultants? The consultants, strategists, and pollsters get paid, win or lose.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There are McMansions in Virginia horse country -- and yachts on the Chesapeake Bay -- that were paid for with consulting contracts on losing campaigns.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

VOICES FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE: OBAMA WTF

Usually, this is the time I reprint an entire article from a guest blogger. In this instance, however, I thought it would be sufficient just to link an incredible collection of Obama lies from the blog Obama WTF. The guy does about the best job I've seen of keeping tabs on Obama. Or, as he likes to say, "debunking Obama". So, check it out. "Obama's Demonstrable Lies: 34 and growing".

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

VOICES FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE: THE MOTHER COUNTRY LOSES OUR ESTEEM

The Big Feed is proud to present this article from the esteemed Baron Bodissey who writes for the blog, Gates of Vienna.

Reprinted with full permission.


The Mother Country Loses Our Esteem
by Baron Bodissey

Two generations ago, when I was in my early teens, the general attitude of Americans towards Great Britain was summed up by Roger Miller in his classic pop tune, “England Swings”:

Now, if you huff and puff and you fin’lly save enough
Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea
Take a tip before you take your trip
Let me tell you where to go
Go to England, oh

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children
That was the same England that our family moved to, and even though it wasn’t the rosy-cheeked picture painted by Mr. Miller, it was still a cultural entity that was recognizable to us as England, albeit in its post-war post-empire incarnation.

To Americans, England was the Mother Country, even for those of us whose ancestors came from somewhere else. It was the ultimate source of our American values, and although we had fallen out with George III a while back, we still recognized Britain as being like us in essential ways. We were willing to overlook their snobbishness and condescension towards us colonials, and the bad food, and the appalling weather, because England was… well, England.

Alfred the Great. 1066 and all that. Chaucer. The Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Sir Isaac Newton. Queen Victoria. The sun never sets on it.

Our eccentric elder brother, that nook-shotten Isle of Albion.

But not any more. According to Investor’s Business Daily, Americans are revising their opinion of the Mother Country based on its recent behavior:
Why U.S. View Of Britain Is Tanking

Public Opinion: Most global surveys on image spotlight negative views of the U.S. But a new poll of U.S. perceptions of Britain shows a plunge. Since it’s the U.K.’s turn under this microscope, we’ll venture some reasons.

First, it’s no pleasure to see U.S. perceptions fall so precipitously for our oldest and closest ally — the one with whom we went through two World Wars and the Cold War, and in each simultaneously elected great leaders who rose to the occasion.

But from a BBC World Service poll of 1,000 Americans, it’s clear U.S. views of Britain have fallen sharply. The BBC said “positive views” of Britain stand now at 45%, down from 67% a year ago. Those holding negative views are at 42%, up from 18%.

What happened? The poll gives no reason for the big shift, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to gauge at least some possibilities:

First, it’s clear Britain is no longer the ally it once was. In the great war on terror, its leaders are going wobbly, despite the valor of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain’s weakening commitment signals an unreliable partner, which whatever the rationale, isn’t admirable.

[…]

And under direct fire, some British forces looked downright soggy. When an Iranian National Guard boat brazenly took British sailors hostage in 2007, the U.K. military leadership sought to free them at any cost, including national honor.

- - - - - - - - -

The released seamen disgraced themselves further by whining about iPods, praising their captors when they were let go and then accepting Iranian swag bags on the way home. The British public completed the sorry picture by making a tabloid spectacle of it.

Although some of these bad moves were eventually halted, the fact that they happened at all signaled a military gone soft.

That brings up a second repellent trend — a culture gone so soft it won’t defend itself. Several events happened to show it.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who leads the Church of England, said Britons will eventually accept some aspects of Muslim Shariah law — the same rules that cut off hands for stealing, heads for blasphemy, and force women behind the veil.

As practiced, it’s the very system responsible for the stagnation and poverty of Arabic and Muslim cultures over a thousand years — which happens to be why many Muslims flee to Britain in the first place. If the Archbishop won’t stand up for British values, who will?
It’s a good question: Who will?

Are the imams and the BNP our only choices?

The U.S. is constantly bombarded with news stories of Piglet mugs being banned to avoid offending Muslims, U.K. flags being taken down in prisons because their crosses offend Muslims, and mosque Minarets rising among the historically dreaming spires of Oxford.

All these are strikes against some of the strongest and most beloved symbols of Britain. If a culture doesn’t want to defend itself, no one else will. But certainly, no one has to admire it.

Then there’s the lack of seriousness about terrorism. Against the Orwellian quality of British law enforcement, such as ubiquitous street cameras, there’s been remarkable inefficiency in fighting terrorism — and Britain has been hit by three terror strikes as a result.

And then there’s that old favorite, Yank-hatred, which — unlike Pak-hatred or Arab-hatred — is not yet considered “racism”:

Despite its role as ally, British officialdom is loaded with anti-Americanism, which frequently spills over to the public. Everyone from Prince Andrew to local pop stars feels it’s OK to make anti-American statements. The fact that Mark Malloch Brown, who has expressed open contempt for Americans, can reach a high advisory post in the government, or that crazy leftists like Ken Livingstone or George Galloway can even be elected, dampens our affection, too.
The editorial points out that the negative attitude towards the Brits held by Americans has arisen in part because of our historical affinity for the island. A falling-out between brothers is more rancorous than an argument with a mere acquaintance.

The whole thing could turn around instantly at the first sign of spinal regeneration on the part of the British. But every week brings another collection of bizarre and disheartening news stories about dhimmitude and institutional cowardice in the United Kingdom.

We’re all eager to see the situation change.

If you would like to leave a comment for Baron Bodissey, you can do so here

*

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

VOICES FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE: IS VENEZUELA BECOMING THE IRAN OF SOUTH AMERICA?

The Big Feed is proud to present the following blog from one of its Sister Networks, The Transatlantic Conservative.

March 3, 2008 - Is Venezuela Becoming the Iran of South America?

It seemed obvious, that rather sooner than later, the socialist governments of some South American Nations would mean trouble for the continent. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela and troublemaker extraordinaire finally found what he called a “causus bellis” (sic) with neighbouring Colombia. Colombia has been the United States’ only ally in the region for quite some time and has been struggling for years against attacks by the marxist-leninist terrorist group FARC. This weekend, Colombian troops crossed the border with Ecuador, killed the FARC leader Raul Reyes and found proof for the involvement of the Ecuadorian Minister of the Interior with the FARC terrorists.

That, in turn, mobilized fat Hugo and he is, like his socialist friends in Ecuador, putting troops on the border with Colombia, expulsing Colombian diplomats and talking publicly of war with the only government friendly to the US and Israel in the region. Even if you do not understand Spanish, you should watch the videos of fat Hugo impersonating a mafia don here and especially here.

Colombia's government has received support from Washington to fight the guerrillas - as the US, along with the EU, views FARC as a terrorist organisation.
Colombian troops have recently retaken control of areas previously held by rebel groups, but FARC retains a strong hold over Colombia's more remote regions.

Colombia's foreign minister said he regretted that troops had to cross the border, but said it had been necessary in the fight against terrorism.
"The Colombian government has never wanted to disrespect or violate the sovereignty or integrity of the sister republic of Ecuador," Fernando Araujo said.
A spokesman for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said that during the raid, troops had found documents that provided information that "[Ecuadorian President Correa] has a relationship and commitments with Farc",
Police commander Gen Oscar Naranjo said one document showed Reyes had met Ecuador's minister of internal security and that they discussed Mr Correa's "interest in making official relations with the FARC". Colombia's defense minister had described the death of Reyes as the "biggest blow so far" to Farc.

Speaking on his weekly television show, President Chavez said Venezuela's embassy in Bogota would close. He lamented the killing of Reyes - whom he called a "good revolutionary" - when he spoke on his show, "Alo, Presidente". Chavez described the strike as "a cowardly murder, all of it coldly calculated". He said Colombia had "invaded Ecuador, flagrantly violated Ecuador's sovereignty". Chavez addressed his defense minister, asking him to "move 10 battalions to the border with Colombia for me, immediately" - a deployment likely to involve several thousand soldiers.


Posted by TC