Sunday, January 15, 2012

Cruising the Web

Will the Supreme Court take up a case against New York City's rent control law?

Vladimir Putin vows to end police
repression in Russia. Yeah, that's a likely campaign promise to be kept.

George Will has a great column on how absurdly long it is taking to get approval to deepen Charleston harbor five feet in order for it to be ready for bigger container ships. This will be crucial as the Panama Canal is being widened to allow such ships through and then there will be a need for US harbors to accommodate those ships. But the approval process today takes longer than the time it took to construct the original Panama Canal. Such absurdity leads Steven Hayward to call for a new Laffer Curve to analyze the effects of regulation.

Merecedes Benz is now apologizing using the image of Che Guevara to sell its cars as "revolutionary" and they just thought Che's face was just the image to sell their luxury cars. And now they're surprised that people were offended. Geesh!

John Hinderaker mines a report from Club for Growth
on Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts to provide evidence that Romney's administration was a lot more conservative than might have been imagined. And then he explains more carefully what happened with the South Carolina firm that was owned by a company that Bain was involved in. It was first opened by the Bain-backed company and built up to hiring 150 employees, but was then closed four years later.

Here are the top ten revelations about the Obamas from Jodi Kantor's new book. It will save you time and money from reading it. I didn't see anything terribly shocking. sure, they held an over-the-top Halloween Party and made sure the press didn't find out about it. Big whoop. I find this book's revelation much more damaging - that President Obama got sick of taking pictures with the troops when he made a visit to Baghdad. That anecdote is much more revealing of his suitability to being president than ten Halloween Party-type exposes.

No surprise: focus group audiences hated Jon Huntsman's use of Mandarin in the GOP debate. It's not that people dislike that he knows how to speak Mandarin, it's his pretentious arrogance in showing off in the middle of a debate.

This is a good analysis of what we can learn from political ad campaigns. It's not what you might imagine.


tfhr said...

I'm sure the MerCh├ędes Benz campaign would've been a big hit in Hollywood even if it flopped in Florida. I recall Cameron Diaz sporting a Mao bag when she was touring around Peru.

I wonder if the advertising morons that hatched that brilliant idea will be trying a high-speed or light rail concept with Hitler's image behind it...all under the guise of efficiency in mass transit.

ic said...

When Obama brings up Bain, Romney should ask how many workers have Solyndra fired, how much bonuses have the management shared for bankrupting the company, how much money did billionaire Kaiser get back from the taxpayers' $435 million. How many more workers lost their jobs in the other 11 Obama bailout Solyndra-like companies. Oh, Perelman, and Lightsquared. Romney doesn't need to attack, or gets defensive about Bain, but keeps asking questions.

Romney's Bain never used a dime of taxpayers' money.

mark said...

I realize the new Fox talking points call for equating Solyndra and Bain, but think of the logic: After (rightly) bashing Solyndra for months, how can you both defend Bain and equate it with Solyndra?
That's about as absurd as screaming for two years that the president is a commie for wanting insurance mandates and then choosing a candidate who instituted insurance mandates.

Romney has claimed he helped create 100,000 jobs. I look forward to seeing his evidence.

You're misinformed or lying about Bain not taking a dime of our money.

tfhr said...


You staggered into the last thread on Romney with specious claims of a "government bailout", which you well know, has been debunked. You did not respond to the challenge to support your errant claim with evidence and now you're peddling a new, unsupported claim.

So now you've switched to a new tactic of claiming Bain has been taking "our money". Really? How much of "your money"? From the sloppy article you (actually) linked, it sounds like Indiana acted to help improve it's business climate by lowering taxes on businesses that brought in jobs. That's horrible! By the way, Think Progressive, your source, sounds like an oxymoron. It also raised claims, just as you do, without following through with hard facts. Surprise! This must be why you so seldom provide links.

Now I'm going to have to find where this involved investing federal dollars. Please point to where that information exists, because I cannot find it and you've not provided it heretofore. I'll have to also find where the investment came with special arrangements for a campaign bagman like we saw with Solyndra. $500,000,000.00 for Solyndra and when all of those workers lost their job, Obama's campaign bundler buddies get special priority ahead of American tax payers when it comes to recovering the money their President "invested" in a green engery scam. After all of that and you cannot see the difference between that and a company that is still in business and was started with private capital? You must be a desperate moron to even attempt such a comparison, mark.

You also have to have some nerve to call ic a "liar", after attempting to perpetuate your "bailout" falsehood. You know very well that Bain didn't take federal money with the collapse of the Massachusetts bank.

Now show us just how much money Bain has taken from the federal government or how much money Indiana has given directly to Bain, or try to make your case in favor of government working to make it harder to create jobs. Hint: That last part is pretty much Obama's strong suite. Well, OK, I have to give him props for those Fiskar jobs he sent to Finland with our federal tax dollars and his shrewd support of Soros' oil business in Brazil. "J-O-B-S", as Biden says, just not in the U-S-A.

mark said...

I believe you meant "strong suit", not "suite".

tfhr said...

Yes but if that's the best you can do then it's safe to say that answering a substantive challenge to your lame commentary is not your strong suit.

Where are your facts to back your claim?

David said...

Re the George Will article: He should have also noted that Georgia and South Carolina are using environmental litigation against each other as weapons in the war between the ports of Charleston and Savannah.