--And there is no potential President in either party that you can reasonably expect to make things better
Rand Paul would "make it better" because:
A) There wouldn't BE a federal government by the time he got done cutting it.
B) He'd put us on a gold standard, and there isn't enough gold in the vaults to spend on bribing all the politicians.
I heard somebody mention most of that to Howard Dean on "Morning Joe" the other day.
"That's the Clintons!" replied Dean, shrugging his shoulders.
You laid out the indictment beautifully of the Clinton's selling their public office influence for personal profit.
But Howard Dean gave the response in three words: "That's the Clintons!" while shrugging his shoulders to indicate that he didn't care about it. The Democrats don't care what the Clinton's did, and the Republicans have been told to "stick to the issues that matter and avoid attacking Ms. Clinton personally." The people will have to sort it out for themselves and decide if it's enough to disqualify Ms. Clinton from being President.
You are fair-minded in bringing up as many objections to the Clinton's and Obama as you did with Bush when he was President. Let's home the majority of American voters are 1/10th as fair-minded when they go to the polls.
I think Nixon acted out of a motive to protect his cronies --- Haldeman, Erlichman, Attorney General Mitchel --- as well as himself. He surrounded himself with a lot of rascals who had too much time on their hands and too much undocumented campaign contributions to play with.
But they were his lifelong friends, and he did not want to see them brought down by his enemies in the press. I once saw a list of Nixon's most despised enemies list:
1. The New York Times
2. The Boston Globe
3. The Washington Post
4. CBS News
5. NBC News
6. ABC News
7. University professors
8. The Democrats
9. The North Vietnamese Communists
10. The South Vietnamese government
He really hated the press and wanted to protect his buddies by stonewalling their Watergate investigation.
You're exactly right, VT. I've read Nixon's books, and he explained his motivation for preserving his tapes exactly the way you said he did. He felt that they were HIS tapes of HIS life and he could wrap his arms around them and shield them from outside scrutiny. He really felt that the President was above the law until the Supreme Court and Congress decided that he wasn't. Some of that mentality got into Bill and Hillary too and has caused them a load of grief.
I'm just wondering if Black folks inherited a gene that invokes an involuntary response of running from the police. Their ancestors did spend a lot of time in the jungle running away from lions, tigers, rogue elephants, and headhunters from other tribes. So maybe its just part of their nature. Maybe the police should carry tranquilizer darts instead of firearms to take them down.
He'll be gone in a year and a half. The Republican debates get started in two months, so that will start the countdown to a new President. Obama will become a "lame duck" at that time and people will start looking ahead to 2016.
btw the Republicans booted Carly Fiorina out of the debate, so we won't have to listen to her big mouth.
Too bad Nixon didn't keep the Watergate Tapes on a "personal" recorder like Ms. Clinton. Nixon could have tossed them in his fireplace the minute that White House aid blabbed about them to the Congressional Committee.
I still remember the instant that happened. I didn't watch much of the Watergate hearings, but the TV happened to be on when a White House aide named Butterfield was testifying to the committee.
Somebody on the Watergate Committee asked him sarcastically, "Can you PROVE your testimony is true?"
"Sure can," answered Butterfield. "It's all on tape."
The reporters went tearing out of there like ants whose nest has been kicked over. There weren't any cell phones in those days, so they trampled each other to be first to the pay phones to call in the story to their papers.
In those days the software vendors insisted on selling an entire ERP system on the "big bang" theory. They told you not to convert little by little to the new system and test it as you go, but to convert everything at once. That was "the big bang." Once you agreed to do that, they had you by the gonads, because they knew that after the "big bang" you COULDN'T go back to your old system.
With metered cloud software you can start with a few seats --- say one each in Customer Service, Production, and Supply Chain. You can see how that goes, then add more seats. If something doesn't work, you can suspend the conversion process until it does.
HPQ, IBM, and SAP positive despise that kind of competition because it knocks the underpinnings out of their extortionate "big bang" theory of having to pay full fare for software before you ascertain that it meets your business needs.
I've seen a poor implementation of J.D. Edwards torpedo a large factory and cause it to shut down. I've seen a poor implementation of SAP contribute to the bankruptcy of a well-known company. I've seen a company pay $50,000,000 for a defunct software product (one of those that had the word "Smart" in it) that never became operational.
These debacles are always covered up by corporate management. CEO's don't want to be fired for authorizing the selection of a non-performant computer system. So, they pretend it is the best thing that ever happened to the company even while the company's business deteriorates due to the debilitation of its computer systems.
Sometimes the CIO / IT manager gets fired, but even that doesn't happen very often. The CIO / IT manager usually migrates away from a failed implementation and takes a job managing the systems of another company that doesn't know his/her history. Carly Fiorina had that maneuver down to a "T".
I was once on a committee to select a software replacement. The software salesman (from a well-known company) told us that there were "thousands" of happy customers using the product. I insisted on having a reference list of companies using the software. The sales rep hemmed and hawed but finally came up with five references. I called all of them. Three of the five said the implementation had failed at their companies, and the other two weren't far enough along to know whether it would work.
I used to have some clients in common with HP and got to know some HP consultants. They really foamed at the mouth with glee about being able to take over a large end-user company's IT operations and turn their billing meters on for hundreds of consultants at $125 an hour (that was 20 years ago).
The CEO of one well-known, consumer-oriented company I worked with awarded HP a contract to manage all their IT operations. The company was bankrupt less than six months later. The company had a lot of problems of their own making, but still having a bunch of HP consultants running around with their meters running didn't help their cashflow.
HP didn't save the end-user company's business either with new IT technology either, although the end-user's company was already probably beyond saving short of a miracle from God.
On the other hand, when I managed IT for small companies, HP consultants always did good work for the money. We used them on and as-needed basis and didn't let them run around with their meters on all day.
Put yourself in the shoes of an IT Manager (or CIO as they're called these days). I did that job for decades, both as an in-house employee and outside software vendor. I shuddered every time I upgraded any application or OS component, even if it was on one person's PC. Making sure the systems were stable soaked up 60% of the time and caused 95% of the aggravation. Just imagine you're maintaining the systems of a national company or a multinational that has thousands of users on three or four continents.
And things have only gotten a lot more difficult since then. I know the IT Manager of a major auto factory for a Korean auto company with factories in the U.S. He told he has to deal with 80,000 hacks a day, many originating for North Korea.
No way in hell would I want to have those systems in-house systems exposed to viruses, hacks, and systems integration problems. First thing I'd do is buy a system for Salesforce, Workday, SAP, Oracle, etc. and tell them "you host it from the cloud." Letting them diagnose the problems on their servers removes a world of hurt from your shoulders. What IT Manager / CIO wouldn't want to do it that way?
The move to the "cloud" will be driven by software. If you buy your system of record from Salesforce (CRM), Workday, or Oracle, you'll want to run the apps on their cloud servers. Since these software companies don't make hardware they're not going to try to sell you a room full of servers. You buy a license for x number of user seats, CPU's, or whatever and run it off of their servers. That eliminates the most awful nightmares of IT managers of fighting viruses and hackers and worrying about whether the next patch from Microsoft or whoever is going to blow your whole system up. Your software vendor will be doing that job for you.
HPQ, which, after the failure of Autonomy, has no application software, will be left out in the cold, trying to peddle low-margin servers and high-margin integrations application consulting that end user companies migrating to other vendors' cloud infrastructure no longer need.
The PE of the company will continue to contract. It will attract that ignominious class known as "the value investor." These are the most stupid people in the market. They flock like maggots to eat the dung that more savvy investors have already excreted. They will be feasting on HPQ shares then puking their guts out, while pretending to have enjoyed the meal.
HPQ, like most other large companies, hires CEO's who know how to spoon-feed Wall Street the shtick it wants to hear. These days, the shtick for a big company is all about how many employees can be laid off instead of what can be done to grow the business.
Wall Street just laps this stuff up. I remember when Wall Steet was hyping GM at $35.00 back in 2007, a couple years before it went bankrupt. They were hyping HPQ in the 50's too, just before it plunged to the 20's. Wall Street loves to hype spavined companies that are going nowhere but down.
In the meantime, they remain skeptical of the real growth story going on under their noses, which is Apple.
The market's reaction to HP earnings is hard to anticipate. HP's fortunes haven't looked bright to me since the mid 1990s. But the company is very well connected into Wall Street. HP's CEO's are hired for their ability to spoon-feed Wall Street the script it likes to hear: more cost cutting, more layoffs, more stock buybacks, and the Great Turnaround that has been in progress for the past thirty years.
The game is to entice investors into the stock with the usual "rainbows and puppies" shtick then sell it off when it runs up.
I except we'll hear a predictable "rainbows and puppies" script this afternoon, and the investors will flock in. Then the firms that have been holding on for a long time will unload.
Congress is too full of "I voted for it before I voted against it" people like John Kerry to make decisions on anything less than the most major of issues. Not picking on Kerry -- he was just honest about admitting what Congresspersons do when confronted with tough issues.
It's the President's job to yell "bombs away!" when the pi$&$-ant countries are annoying us.
That's why we invented drones. Nobody ever put a drone on trial for blowing somebody up with a remote-controlled missile.
Also, the military code of justice permits our soldiers to be tried by the civilian host government only for "crimes" committed by a military personnel while not in combat. For example, an American servicemen assaulting a Japanese woman after coming home from an off-base nightclub. You can't have the Iraqis, or anybody else, trying American soldiers on allegations that they inflicted casualties on people they assumed were enemies on combat. That would be like the Pakistanis trying the American servicemen who eliminated OBL and some of his associates. If the Iraqi government couldn't agree to those terms, then it is right for us to leave and let them fend for themselves.
Well, let's give Bill credit for this one. Getting a "job" from Hillary? Most people would rather subcontract that "job" to a female grizzly bear in heat.
I just checked the weather report in NW Lower Michigan. Saw the freeze warning for last night. I'm glad I was delayed in heading up there for the "summer" because the way things are going in won't be summer in Michigan until August. I also saw all the Oakland A's fans bundled up in parkas for their game the other night.
Some "global warming," eh?
Maybe we should call that nut from the NOAA who told us that that Hudson Bay no longer freezes in Winter. I don't know what he was drinking when he sent out the press release, but whatever it was, it must have been potent stuff.
The "dream ticket" for the Democrats would be Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Think about the excitement THAT ticket would bring to a campaign. Now imagine Hillary campaigning while the audience falls asleep. Hillary is going to make a complete fool of herself if she continues with her campaign.
Same-sex marriage is a "winner" for the 8% of the population who are gay, or who are left-Libertarian or right-Libertarian. It's a loser for the 40% of the population that still considers itself to have "old-fashioned" values. There's a reason why the Dems got stomped on in the 2014 election, despite their having all the right answers to economic issues. The Dems could handle the "gay marriage" satisfactorily in a quieter way without getting in people's faces about it. The way they are handling it, more than the issue itself, is going to cost them votes.
As for Iraq, the only people who care about it are Democrats who never vote Republican anyway.
I'd lay odds of 50% on Jeb Bush getting nominated, and 50% of him being elected. Your dissing of him indicates the fear he strikes in Democrat hearts. He was re-elected in Florida in 2004 by a landslide, likely polling a majority of DEMOCRATIC voters to go along with the Republicans and Independents.
As for Hillary odds are 50% of being nominated and 15% of being elected. If the Dems have any sense they'll dump her and put up Elizabeth Warren as their candidate --- the same process of by-passing Hillary that got them into the Whitehouse in '08 when Obama did it.