Archive for the 'Candidates' category

Sarah Palin Facts

Aug 29 2008 Published by under Candidates, Politics

Josh Trevino, Ben Domenech and I are doing a little digging into some of the lesser known facts about our next Vice President Sarah Palin. We’re posting them at www.PalinFacts.com. Here’s a little sample:

  • Sarah Palin used to wrestle kodiak bears in Alaskan bare knuckles fight clubs.
  • Sarah Palin once bagged a caribou by staring it down until it died.
  • Sarah Palin turned down a job as skipper of a Deadliest Catch boat because it wasn‚Äôt challenging enough
  • Sarah Palin fishes salmon by convincing them it‚Äôs in their interest to jump into the boat.
  • Sarah Palin once guided Santa‚Äôs sleigh through an Alaskan blizzard with the light from her smile.

Bookmark the site or subscribe to the RSS for more facts.

4 responses so far

Are Obama-Biden Good for Women?

Aug 28 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Jobs, John McCain, Pandering, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans

Not on equal pay and glass ceiling issues. After Biden’s cry for equal pay in his acceptance speech last night, I took a look at equal pay in his office and posted the following thoughts at The Next Right.

One of Joe Biden’s major applause lines tonight came when he demanded equal pay for women. That’s a worthy cause to be sure. But is Biden practicing what he preaches?

Maybe not.

Despite the fact that Biden employs 27 women and only 14 men (could that be a Clinton problem?), very few of the women and men share common titles. The one job where there is overlap is staff assistants. These are traditionally entry level low-wage jobs in congressional offices.

So how do Biden’s salaries stack up?

The average male staff assistant in Biden’s office (based on the most recent salary figures) made $39,162 in the time period.

The average woman in that position made $21,323.

Hey Joe! Before you demand something of others, maybe you should lead by example. Why not start by giving the women in your office a raise?

Update: It also looks like the highest salaries are reserved for men, despite their minority status. 4 out of 14 men made more than $40,000 in the period, but only 5 of 27 women cleared that mark. Two of the men earned $70k, but the highest paid woman made only $46,000

Update 2: Does Obama walk the walk? It looks like he’s certainly better than Biden. A review of his staff for the same period at least shows remarkable consistency in pay for the jobs carrying the same title. Although of the twenty highest salaries in his office, 13 are men and 7 are women.

Update 3: It also works going the opposite direction. Of the 20 lowest salaries in Obama’s office, 13 are women and 7 are men. (And please note, there is no overlap between those two lists, and I have not included anyone that worked less than the full time period.)

Update 4: For those who asked, one final note before I do some real work. Of the 20 highest salaries on John McCain’s staff, 13 are women, and 7 are men.

2 responses so far

Jackson Browne’s Desperate Cry For Attention

Aug 25 2008 Published by under Celebrities, John McCain, Music, Politics, Pop Music, Radio, Republicans

While driving to get a haircut with T2 yesterday, I was listening to the radio. The DJ on the stationtook off on a tangent about Jackson Browne and that, of course, led to him talking about the McCain ad over which Browne sued the campaign, the RNC and the Republican Party of Ohio.

First, the campaign didn’t make the ad, and neither did the RNC. Browne clearly needs to stick to songwriting because he’s no lawyer (and apparently, neither are his lawyers). Suing McCain and the RNC for an OH GOP ad is like suing McDonald’s because you got a bad cheeseburger at Wendy’s – based on the theory that they all make hamburgers and therefore share in the liability.

All three of these groups are separate legal entities. Suing one for the actions of the other is not legally supportable unless you can prove collusion, which is unlikely (and I’m not even sure that would support anything other than an FEC violation).

Second, Browne’s suit is clearly politically motivated. You don’t sue organizations that had nothing to do with the ad unless you’re trying to make a political point. Browne could have sued the Ohio GOP, but he knew that wouldn’t make news. So they named the RNC and McCain as well. This is about politics and the alleged infringement is BS.

Third, very telling about Browne’s suit is this passage:

The 59-year-old singer claims his reputation has already been damaged and is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

Browne released “Running on Empty” ‚Äî the song and an album by the same name ‚Äî in 1977. According to the lawsuit, the album has sold more than 7 million copies.

So Browne is suing over a song that’s 31 years old. He’s claiming $75,000 in damages. It seems likely to me that Browne’s sales as a result of this little publicity ploy should result in more sales of the album/song than he has seen in years otherwise.

This isn’t about a musician who was grievously injured by the misuse of one of his songs by a politician he does not support. It is much more likely that Browne suing McCain was more about getting his name in the paper and moving some units of an old song that was likely to remain largely forgotten otherwise.

Need further evidence that Browne’s political activism has hampered his sales, leading to his latest publicity outing? Try this from Billboard.com

With his first four albums, Browne built a loyal following that helped him break into the mainstream with 1976′s The Pretender. During the late ’70s and early ’80s, he was at the height of his popularity, as each of his albums charted in the Top Ten. Midway through the ’80s, Browne made a series of political protest records that caused his audience to gradually shrink…

Browne hasn’t released a new album in six years, instead pursuing “intimate (read: small), acoustic shows around the globe”.

Unable to draw an audience, and unable to sell his unique brand of burned out hippy protest albums, Browne is left with only one option: strike out in a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit at a campaign that has nothing to do with your claim in a desperate attempt to get attention.

Well, Jackson, you’ve succeeded.

No responses yet

Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax, and Some Facts From the WSJ

Aug 04 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Government, Pandering, Political Parties, Politics, Taxes

Obama on Friday proposed a return to the good old days of Jimmy Carter’s energy policies by suggesting a windfall profits tax on oil producers.

The new Obama ad also pushes his proposal to revive a windfall profits tax on energy companies and asserts that McCain favors tax breaks for the oil industry.

“A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says.

Obama would use the tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.

Congress enacted a windfall profits tax in 1980, during an earlier era of high oil prices, but repealed it in 1988 amid concern it discouraged domestic oil development. Last year, the House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies, but Senate Republicans blocked them.

And thank goodness they did. The windfall profits tax is a tremendously stupid idea premised on the fact that Americans want to take out their anger on someone. But a little digging provides more than a few examples of others that should be taxed. The Wall Street Journal today, helpfully, has a little list and some fact behind the “windfall” lunacy.

What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s “emergency” plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for “stimulus” checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits.

Exactly the problem. Who gets to define this ridiculous idea? Apparently, Dick Durbin.

Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat… recently declared that “The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.”

Ok, maybe the concept of capitalism has changed since I studied economics in school, but I don’t recall “there is a limit on how much profit you can take” being part of the economic formula. Let’s assume it is, however. Exxon should surely pay its share, right?

Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion.

That’s right, Exxon paid more in US taxes than it made in the US. Quite a bit more. You see, Exxon is a company that operates globally. It’s sales are global. So we actually see a US company taking money out of the hands of foreign nations, and depositing them into the hands of the US government. Now the Democrats in the US government want to take more money from around the world and spend it on us.

However, we’re not tasked with addressing that fact. We need to figure out what qualifies them for paying such a ridiculous tax. Since they’re entire US revenue already goes to taxes, maybe we can use some other metric to justify the windfall tax.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings.

None of those industries are being asked to pony up… So that can’t be it… Maybe it’s growth based…

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year… This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about “outrageous” profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006.

The fact is, as the WSJ article points out, the idea of a “windfall” profits tax is ridiculous. It could be assessed against any company in America for any number of reasons. It’s simply another way for big government bureaucrats and politicians to redistribute wealth in America. Since Exxon’s US taxes already exceed its US income, in this case, it’s actually a way to redistribute wealth TO America.

That should make Obama’s European fans happy, huh?

No responses yet

My Personal Experience With Republicans and Racism

Aug 01 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, John McCain, Political Parties, Politics, Race, Republicans, Society

With all the discussion of “Republican racism” taking place as a result of Obama’s claim that McCain’s “risky” adjective is based on looks, I thought I’d weigh in. I have been involved in GOP politics for 15 years, and in that time I have never – not once – been involved in a discussion of an opposing candidates race and how to exploit it.

Now the corollary to that is the number of election cycles in that time where I have seen Democrats throw out the racism charge as a way of shoring up their support. On that metric, the Democrats are batting .1000.

I cannot speak to what the GOP may have done in the 70s and 80s because I wasn’t there. I can, however, safely say that every conversation I have had about race in campaigns since 1994 was either a) how the Democrats were exploiting race at our candidates expense and b) how we write copy, produce ads, and develop messages with the specific goal of not providing an opening that let’s them do that.

From everything I have seen, the GOP is obsessively concerned with “not” using race as an issue. That’s not to say that the random nut doesn’t do something stupid, but there will always be examples of nuts saying and doing stupid things. That does not equate to the sustained campaign of racism the Democrats allege.

All of the evidence I have seen of systemic abuse of race comes from the other side, and their attempts to exploit “racism” not “race” for political gain.

One response so far

« Newer posts Older posts »