Sen. Obama Soars with Soros.

According Bloomberg .com, Billionaire Investor Carl Icahn opposes Barack Obama while B. I. George Soros supports him. Here is Icahn's reason, as quoted in the piece: Coupled with the higher tax rates that the Illinois senator has already endorsed, ``you would have a loss of confidence in the dollar,'' leading to accelerating inflation and ``much higher interest rates,'' Icahn said.

In their story they should note that George Soros is a Currency Speculator. After all, he may be shorting the dollar. From Ivestopedia:

George Soros gained international notoriety when, in September of 1992, he risked $10 billion on a single currency speculation when he shorted the British pound. He turned out to be right, and in a single day the trade generated a profit of $1 billion – ultimately, it was reported that his profit on the transaction almost reached $2 billion. As a result, he is famously known as the "the man who broke the Bank of England.

This seems like a real conflict of interest where B.I. Soros is concerned.

Whatch that racism, racist!

After noting that one in five voters in the West Virginia Primary took race into consideration, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown write in The Politico (Five things to watch in Kentucky):

And though Kentucky voters may also factor race into their votes, they also might be more reluctant to admit it to exit pollsters, said Laurie Rhodebeck, an associate political science professor at the University of Louisville.

“Voters get a little prickly here if you say race” drove their choice, she said. “They’ll say, ‘It’s more that we’re concerned about his church ties or his lack of military experience or that he seems so young and untested.’ Those may be socially acceptable ways of saying they’re uncomfortable with a black candidate.”

OK. And what are the Socially Acceptable ways of saying he's unqualified? Let me think. I guess there are none. Silly me.

It is interesting to see what Liberals think of their own voters. Are you a racist hick Democrat -- even more of a racist than you are a sexist? Or are you an elvan, Rivindale, temperate rain forest dwelling, Democrat? And where do you shop?

(via Pajamas Media)

A Rube addresses the Ruben

Here is my take on the Ruben Navarrette Jr. piece at Pajamas Media "Is Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America?" Of course "Racism" ranks with "Global Warming" and the "Evils of Capitalism" in contemporary media's TOE of what's wrong with America. I left these thoughts in the comment section.

OK, if you want to argue that the Clintons are racist, that’s one thing. But the vast majority of their voters? I don’t see it. The anecdotes you present (in a nation of 300 million) are not that persuasive. I’m sure some of it really happened. I’m also sure some of it was made-up (that happens, too). But why are you branding almost half of the Democratic party racist on the behavior of a few? Even if among those few are the candidates themselves and their highly paid, media connected and beltway dwelling operatives?

In fact before the Left Reverend Wright episode, Sen. Obama got the votes of many “white working class men.” The episode provided them with persuasive new information and many changed their minds. What do you do in those circumstances? Banish all doubt?

We should remember that most Americans do not trust “objective” media. So when the objective media portrays someone in Saintly terms and then a locked safe full of dirty laundry and a biography full of poetic license comes to light, what do they do? They decide the rest of the reporting is crap, which is a reasonable conclusion. But based on the “objective” medias prior behavior, do you suggest the media be taken at face value? Are you saying if we are not idiots and naive fools, we are racist? You pitch the guy as transcending race. He has a racist preacher and terrorist friends and corrupt money men supporters. And somehow his “typical white” grandmother or someone he met at school is their equivalent. You guys not only buy it, you sell it. Where you got your heads?

The media sells Barak Obama in a way that would make history’s most despicable used car salesman blush. No “truth in advertising” laws for you guys. You just shove your past distortions down the memory hole.

Them that Are Suck-up-ceptible to Diplomacy

Part of being a bureaucrat is identifying the real enemy.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the" Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:

The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.

New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.

But did Mr. Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.

"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.

Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr. Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr. Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.

Mr. Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.

Is Mr. Fingar advising the Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call Barak Obama a politician.

And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.

In search of peace, President Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?

He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."

They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?

And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.

The most influential US political pundits

I thought if I made this list I might squeak in at number 50. But alas, that slot is occupied by Rachel Maddow, whoever she is. Apparently she got an evening radio show on Air America, whatever that is. I, at least, have a blog.

Maybe the Basra Screw-up was intended

I speculated a week ago over at the Belmont Club that the operations that started at the end of March against the Mahdi army may not have caught the US command by so much of a surprise as they state.

Both Baghdad and Washington are information sieves. So plans for major moves in Southern Iraq where rolled out for this coming July. These would mimic operations last summer north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, Iran would supply surprises of its own in April/May.

But the Iraqi army jumped off in Basra first. They apparently achieved tactical surprise (I'll speculate "in what way" in a bit) and the offensive (which will likely carry on through the summer) started off as an Iraqi on Iraqi fright -- with the Americans apparently caught flat footed.

The problem for Iran is that their "army" in Iraq is stranded behind enemy lines. That means they cannot resupply and provide reinforcements in timely manner. So at the end of March they would have stashes of weapons and a rough plan for future action.

They also have a clandestine system of command and control. Basically it is possible to conceal who reports to who and who controls what in times of relative calm. But hit them with a sudden crisis and immediately the chain of command has to reveal itself -- or lose its forces to inaction. Clandestine system lights up.

So immediately communications flow at a high rate through the organization. The relationship and rank of the actors become apparent to many "low level" operatives who found "relative rank" very obscure before. People are captured and talk about what they've seen.

The idea is to have Iran's gun in Iraq misfire. And it may have been the (somewhat risky) plan all along.

The Sadder Party fit for the sadirists.

Seems like this weekend we're watching the disaggregation of the Democratic Party. A couple months ago I speculated it might reach the point where both Barak and Hill run to lose the nomination. The winner will lose in November because a third of the Democrats will stay home. And the loser may well win the nomination and the White House in 2012. So each will work to make the other unelectable while assuring the other gets the nomination.

Obama's behind in this race because he's so far ahead. But the man's got talent. Calling out, "Send me your bitter, your angry, your desperate -- those who fear strangers and cling to guns and religion. I shall regester them (but not their guns!) and encourage them to vote for the first time -- those huddled masses yearning for free, well, hand outs." Hey, Barry, freeloading layabouts don't want it known. So who's gonna put an "OBAMA" sticker on their jalopy?

Now here he is (via Instapundit) ragging on Hillary: "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. . . . I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

OK, Barry, it's all true but please, stop truthin' us so much -- unless you want to lose. Hillary won't even have to cry to get the gals marching to the polls now. I mean, knocking Annie Oakley.

Despite a great start, Barak will have to work hard to lose the nomination while making it look like it was stolen. Maybe he can blame it on Rush Limbaugh.