Beltway Politics
Obama’s $1,000 Day Spa Campaign Expense?
There has been a lot of media coverage over the news that the Republican National Committee has shelled out over $150,000 for a new wardrobe and hair care for VP nominee, Sarah Palin.
Reported disbursements include:
- Saks 5th Avenue: $49,425.74
- Neiman Marcus: $75,062.63
- Hair care for the month of September: $4,716.49
While this probably isn’t what “Joe the Plumber,” “Rose the Teacher,” or “Jerry the Evangelical” spend when they go to the mall, are any of the candidates really in a position where they can criticize these actions?
For a while today, I thought that this was going to be a golden opportunity for Barack Obama to come out swinging, painting both Palin and McCain as elitists who use their supporters money to fund their wardrobe and makeup. With this argument, it would have been extremely easy for Barack Obama to make a correlation between the RNC’s ethics and those executives on Wall Street.
But then I did some digging into Barack Obama’s campaign finance report, and to my surprise what do I find:
May 6th, 2008 - Eneida’s Salon, $1,000, East Berlin, CT - Staging, Sound, Lighting
What’s unique about this is how the Obama campaign expensed this event. After doing a bit of research, I was able to pull up some information about Eneida’s Salon, which now leaves me with some questions:
Location:
251 Asylum St Apt 2w, Hartford, CT 06103-1512
Phone: (860) 247-4247
SIC:Beauty Shops
Line of Business:Beauty Shop
Company Profile:
Company Profile: Eneida’s Salon Inc
Year Started:1986
State of Incorporation:CT
URL:N/A
Location Type:Single Location
Est. Annual Sales:$33,000
Est. Employees:2
Est. Employees at Location:2
Contact Name:Eneida M Bailey
Contact Title:President(source: Manta.com)
To me it seemed very unlikely that the Obama Campaign actually did any “Staging, Sound and Lighting” at Ms. Bailey’s two-person shop. Furthermore, it seemed even more unlikely that Barack Obama would be the type of guy that would need to utilize a beauty shop, simply because he seems more like a barber shop kind of guy to me.
With my curiosities still unfulfilled, I did some research on the owner of this company, Ms. Eneida Bailey, and what I found was even more interesting. This time it wasn’t a link to a business profile, but instead was a link to the Oprah Winfrey Show’s website.
However, this page had been removed for some reason, but Google Cache saved the day. Listed on the Oprah Show’s cached page:
Eneida Bailey:
Eneida’s Salon & Day Spa
251 Asylum Street, Ste. 2W
Hartford, CT 06023
860-247-4247
After finding this nugget of information, I couldn’t help but dig deeper to see what else I could find. Very quickly I was able to find the following article from 1998: “Gayle Force: Talk Show Newcomer Gayle King Follows in the Footsteps of Her Best Friend—Oprah Winfrey”
In this article, Eneida Bailey was quoted, speaking about Gayle King:
Staffers praise their boss’s generosity. “If she knows you,” says hairstylist Eneida Bailey, “you’re her whole life.”
So now the question that I have for the Obama Campaign is who was the recipient of that $1,000 campaign-funded trip to the day spa/hair salon?
Was it Mrs. Obama? If so, I think that is far more questionable than the RNC spending money on the Vice Presidential candidate.
DC Quickey
What Senator McCain should say during tonight’s debate:
“Senator Obama may say that his past is irrelevant and off topic. On the contrary, when a man runs for President of the United States, and holds the destiny of the world in his hands, everything about him, past, present and future is very relevant!”
“We don’t really know Senator Obama, all we have is a slogan, a sparse legislative record and a bunch of off-limit topics. What are you hiding Senator? People know who I am, do we really know who you are?”
“Leadership is about trust, how can we trust you when we can’t even get a straight answer on whether or not you were friends with someone or did or did not hear a sermon?”
“I am not George W. Bush. I am no more George Bush than my friend Senator Obama is Jimmy Carter.”
One can only hope McCain quits his Ben Stein act.
Ads the McCain Campaign should be running right now.
I’ve heard many experts insist that negative campaigning is an essential part of today’s political process, but it seems to me that campaigns have started to take those experts a bit too seriously and ignore what it is that people are actually looking for in a President in 2008.
Yes, people are concerned with Obama’s associations with William Ayers, and yes, his close ties to organizations like ACORN are even more sketchy. However, those attack ads should be left to the 527’s and the national parties.
Focusing particularly on the McCain campaign, he needs to show people that he isn’t going to be just another George W. Bush. However, if he is going to achieve that image, he’s going to have to throw away the Karl Rove-like campaigning and let the American people see him for who he really is. That being a war hero, a leader and a reformer.
Instead of showing videos that continually highlight Obama’s inexperience, I think that McCain needs to go back to some of their better videos that show who John McCain really is, something done well in videos like this:
This video shows a real reformer, someone who is actually willing to go against the status quo and challenge the establishment. Furthermore, it shows a candidate who isn’t hyper-partisan and doesn’t need to go negative to illustrate a point. If McCain would run videos like this, I’m confident that he would see his poll numbers improve.
If you look at the polls, in conjunction with the debates, Senator McCain was hurt significantly upon each conclusion. Why is that? The reason is because instead of being calm and presidential, he spent the majority of his time sounding angry, sarcastic, and/or defensive. While he made some great points in these debates, the majority of the people watching probably didn’t understand everything that he or Obama were talking anyway, but instead were watching the debates to get a better sense of each candidates character.
The fact that McCain is down by so many points should be a sign to his advisers that their current strategy isn’t working. They need a new approach, something that gives the American people, particularly undecided voters, confidence in John McCain. The campaign needs to bring back the John McCain we saw early in the primaries, the candidate who had no problem carrying his own bags and flying commercial. That’s a candidate that the American people can relate to, not some over-anxious, rich, old, white man who smirks every time his opponent speaks.
I’ve told many people that I think that this campaign is over for John McCain, but I truly believe that if they make some changes quickly, I could (happily) be proven wrong.
What a difference a year makes for the economy
One year ago today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) reached one of it’s highest points in history, closing at 14,164.53. What a difference one year makes. Today, the DJIA closed at 8,579.13, meaning that over the past year the DJIA has dropped more than 5,500 points (or -39.45%).
It looks even scarier when graphed:
The National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) Composite Index is down to 1,645.12 from an almost record high of 2,811.61, which represents a decline of 1,158.79 points, or -41.33%.
To be honest, I’m curious to see what sort of tricks Big Bank Hank (Henry Paulson) and Big Ben Bernanke will pull out to try and create the illusion that the markets will see a quick recovery.
Congress was told that they had to pass the controversial Wall Street Bailout package immediately to prevent financial meltdown. This led to the House and Senate leadership blocking debates and amendments, requiring members of Congress to make a vote that many might regret if the markets stay below 10,000 as Election Day nears.
What’s most interesting to me is how many parallels today’s economy shares with the Great Depression. In the late-1920’s, it was Austrian economists that predicted disaster was coming, but nobody listened. Unfortunately, the same thing seems to be happening today.
Austrian School Explanation of Great Depression (via-Wikipedia.org):
Austrian School explanations
Another explanation comes from the Austrian School of economics. Theorists of the “Austrian School” who wrote about the Depression include Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek and American economist Murray Rothbard, who wrote America’s Great Depression (1963). In their view, the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame.
In opinion, Hayek, writing for the Austrian Institute of Economic Research Report in February 1929 predicted the economic downturn, stating that “the boom will collapse within the next few months.”
Ludwig von Mises also expected this financial catastrophe, and is quoted as stating “A great crash is coming, and I don’t want my name in any way connected with it,” when he turned down an important job at the Kreditanstalt Bank in early 1929.
One reason for the monetary inflation was to help Great Britain, which, in the 1920s, was struggling with its plans to return to the gold standard at pre-war (World War I) parity. Returning to the gold standard at this rate meant that the British economy was facing deflationary pressure. According to Rothbard, the lack of price flexibility in Britain meant that unemployment shot up, and the American government was asked to help. The United States was receiving a net inflow of gold, and inflated further in order to help Britain return to the gold standard. Montagu Norman, head of the Bank of England, had an especially good relationship with Benjamin Strong, the de facto head of the Federal Reserve. Norman pressured the heads of the central banks of France and Germany to inflate as well, but unlike Strong, they refused.Rothbard says American inflation was meant to allow Britain to inflate as well, because under the gold standard, Britain could not inflate on its own.
In the Austrian view it was this inflation of the money supply that led to an unsustainable boom in both asset prices (stocks and bonds) and capital goods. By the time the Fed belatedly tightened in 1928, it was far too late and, in the Austrian view, a depression was inevitable.
The artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the Depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse. According to Rothbard, government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult.
Furthermore, Rothbard criticizes Milton Friedman’s assertion that the central bank failed to inflate the supply of money. Rothbard asserts that the Federal Reserve bought $1.1 billion of government securities from February to July 1932, raising its total holding to $1.8 billion. Total bank reserves rose by only $212 million, but Rothbard argues that this was because the American populace lost faith in the banking system and began hoarding more cash, a factor quite beyond the control of the Central Bank. The potential for a run on the banks caused local bankers to be more conservative in lending out their reserves, and this, Rothbard argues, was the cause of the Federal Reserve’s inability to inflate.
Of course, there are always some experts who disagree that another “Great Depression” could happen.
One cant help but think of one of William Shakespeare’s most memorable lines from of the The Tempest, “what’s past is prologue” when analyzing this crisis and those who think this is something that you can just throw money at. Today more than ever, this line seems to be extremely fitting.
Regardless of what some “experts” have said, I’m convinced that this is only the beginning.
Congress tries to gamble, market drops 777
I too lost money today, but there is some humor in the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 777 (lucky 7’s) after Congress voted against taking a gamble on the Wall Street Bailout.
Maybe it’s a sign that the American taxpayers finally won one, or maybe I just think about gambling too much.
5 reasons why some might believe the rumor that Joe Biden is stepping down
If you’re a news junkie like me, odds are you’ve seen a couple dozen stories discussing a rumor that Joe Biden is planning on stepping out of the race in a few days, citing “health reasons”.
The rumor as mentioned on AssociatedContent.com:
“On or about October 5, 2008, Joe Biden will announce his resignation from the race as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate. He will cite health reasons and quietly withdraw. Hillary Clinton is poised to take his place as the Democratic vice presidential candidate. Or so this latest rumor goes.”
Obviously this isn’t the first time that rumors have been started about candidates that have turned out to be nothing, and I guarantee that this won’t be the last.
However, it’s not hard for someone to make an argument that would make this rumor seem like it could be a possibility.
While I am not completely confident in the rumor, here are five things that could lead people to believe that Joe Biden will be leaving the race:
1. - Joe Biden hasn’t been a staunch supporter of the activities of the campaign his name on. Here is Joe Biden commenting on an anti-McCain commercial recently run by his campaign (not a 527): ”
Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the “CBS Evening News,” Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it. “I thought that was terrible, by the way,” Biden said.
2. - There is no doubt whatsoever that Joe Biden is a “family first” kind of guy. Even after his kids grew up, he still came back to Delaware every night to spend time with his family and always did what he could to keep his family close. Now that he is running for Vice President, his family has been a prime target for the RNC, particularly his lobbyist son Hunter who according to the RNC:
was until recently a registered Washington lobbyist whose clients received earmarks from Obama, and Federico Pena, Obama’s campaign co-chairman who has close ties to big electricity.
Random commentary: Honestly, I’ve always thought that this was a pointless argument by the RNC, because I’m quite confident that I can connect Hunter Biden to some of the lobbyists working for McCain. This whole lobbyist argument is getting old anyway, so focus on the issues!
3. - Even Joe Biden himself has said that he thinks Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice than him for the VP:
“Make no mistake about this,” said Biden. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified as I am … She’s qualified to be president of the United States of America and easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America. And quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”
While some might argue that this was just Joe Biden being humble, the tone of his voice really had me thinking that he believed what he was saying.
4. - Joe Biden doesn’t agree with Barack Obama on a variety of core issues, and it’s starting to show:
Asked by NBC’s Meredith Vieira whether the Fed should bail out insurance giant AIG, the senator said no: “I don’t think they should be bailed out by the federal government.” Unfortunately, the remark had more in common with McCain’s initial position on the bailout (instinctive opposition) than Obama’s carefully cultivated claim that he would not “second-guess” the government. When the bailout went through, both Biden and McCain bowed to reality. But the shift left Obama in a tricky position-as Matt Lauer pointed out this morning on “Today.” Noting that Obama had been hitting McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout, Lauer asked the Illinois senator how he could criticize his Republican rival when his own running mate had made the same mistake. His answer? “I think Joe should have waited, as well.” Awkward.
Random commentary: Why does the media consider any deviation from talking-points as a gaffe? Is honesty or an individual point of view no longer allowed in the political arena?
5. - One could argue that even the Obama campaign seems to be reluctant to put Biden’s name on key campaign materials:
In a controversial move sure to upset millions of people, Barack Obama’s campaign has decided to forgo the traditional time-wasting distribution of chum (yard signs, bumper stickers, etc.) to try and win the election.
Random commentary: As a former campaign staffer, I understand the argument for forgoing the campaign signs. They take up a lot of time, and if both sides are good at what they’re doing, those signs wont be in people’s yards anyway come election day ;)
In conclusion, yes, I can see how over the past few weeks some might see Joe Biden’s departure as an inevitable event. However, Barack Obama is still beating John McCain in many polls, and it appears that Obama still may be gaining some momentum. While I don’t think that Biden is essential for Obama’s victory, I don’t necessarily see him doing much damage to the campaign either.
While there are a variety of things that make this rumor seem more legitimate, at present I have a hard time believing it. But as this post reflects, I can’t rule anything out.
Blogs covering the “Biden Rumor:”
- Progressive Californian
- The Right Perspective
- Exposing Liberal Lies
- Frankly, My Dear
- Flopping Aces
- Texas to Oregon
- Sherryness
- Stix Blog
Is your blog covering this story? If so, mention it in the comments and include a direct link to your post!
Video: Payment Systems Protection Act (HR 6870) Markup
If it wasn’t Barney Frank, I would swear that he sounded like a libertarian
House Financial Services Committee Passes ‘Payment Systems Protection Act’
Update: Video of today’s markup can be viewed here
By a vote of 30-19, the House Financial Services Committee passed a modified version of Chairman Barney Frank’s ‘Payment Systems Protection Act (HR 6870).’ This bill would essentially require the United States Treasury to make a list of what specifically would be considered “unlawful Internet gambling,” the key term used in Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) that was unfortunately passed by a Republican majority in 2006.
With the definition of what constitutes as “unlawful Internet gambling” being left for debate, coupled with a prohibition of funding transfers to or from “Internet gambling” sites, credit card companies and U.S. citizens are often left in the dark wondering what “unlawful Internet gambling” actually means. Not wanting to get caught up in the mess that Congress has created, many credit card companies are playing it safe by banning direct transactions to websites like Bodog, Party Poker, etc.
Today, if an American wanted to participate in a harmless game of online poker, that person will have to go through a variety of steps just to get around the fact that his credit card company will not allow him to make a transaction with a variety of self-identified “online gaming” sites.
Instead, Americans have to first purchase an item as a substitute currency (phone card minutes, for example), then take those minutes to poker site, convert those minutes back into dollars, play their game, and if they win, wait for a check to come in the mail.
This process is obviously way more complicated than it should be and the only people that seem to benefit from this legislation are the always powerful members of the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family who have fought aggressively to ensure that the UIGEA was passed.
Very rarely will I say this, but I have to give Chairman Frank a great deal of credit for fighting this battle. In my opinion, the UIGEA is a piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place. But courtesy of a very Grasslean maneuver by Bill Frist, who inserted the bill in the dead of night just before recess packaging it as part of the SAFE Port Act, Congress now finds itself with an extremely important bill that nobody seems to understand (sound like Grassley and the Housing Bill?).
With this passing the Committee, I’m hopeful that it will make its way to the House floor expeditiously. However, Congress is aiming to head to recess in less than 10 days, which makes the likelihood of this bill being brought up for a vote very slim.
But this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.
Currently FreedomWorks is running a petition through a new site, NetFreedomForever.com, urging action to be taken on this important issue. It’s not going to be an easy fight, but with the help of some bloggers and grassroots activists, I think we can get this done.
Blogs currently covering this issue:
- The Poker Blog
- 18Outs.com
- Pokerati.com
- SomeSuchThing
- The Wysiblog
- Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty
- Second Life Herald
- OnlineRummy.org
- The Jay Walk
- Se Vitav Resnoc
- CasinMoz
- Hard Boiled Poker
- Crystal Clear Conservative
If your blog is currently covering this issue, email me (contact, top of page) and we’ll add your blog to the list!
WSJ: A GOP Choice: Tom Coburn or Ted Stevens (Should there even be a choice?)
On my flight back to Washington, I read a great article in the Wall Street Journal, “A GOP Choice: Tom Coburn or Ted Stevens,” where the WSJ’s John Fund asked a question that has seemed to be the 800-pound gorilla in the room, or at least here in DC.
The first paragraph of Fund’s article get’s right to the point, illustrating the problem that unfortunately hasn’t been taken as seriously as it should have been since the 2006 massacre.
The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called “a time for choosing.” A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.
One of the biggest problems that I’ve had with the Republican Party over the past few years is the simple fact that when it comes to voting based on true conservative principles, many members of the party will talk a big game, but when it comes time to vote they cave in like a house of cards.
Let’s just recall back to March 13, 2008, where Senator Jim DeMint introduced his “earmark moratorium” to the Senate floor:
While this amendment seemed quite straight forward, and sounds like an easy victory for the GOP to rally together on, it’s interesting to note which Republicans voted against such an important piece of legislation:
Republicans voting against S. Amendment 4347:
- Bennett (UT)
- Bond (MO)
- Brownback (KS)
- Bunning (KY)
- Cochran (MS)
- Coleman (MN)
- Collins (ME)
- Craig (ID)
- Crapo (ID)
- Domenici (NM)
- Gregg (NH)
- Hagel (NE)
- Hatch (UT)
- Hutchinson (TX)
- Lugar (IN)
- Murkowski (AK)
- Roberts (KS)
- Shelby (AL)
- Smith (OR)
- Snowe (ME)
- Specter (PA)
- Stevens (AK)
- Vitter (LA)
- Voinovich (OH)
- Warner (VA)
- Wicker (MS)
It’s crazy to think that there are 26 Republicans who actually voted against this, but those are just facts that had to be faced.
Now, just assume that the party actually came together and rallied behind core issues that didn’t fluctuate from convention to convention, the overall vote would have been much closer to 50 - 50.
The point I’m trying to make by all of this is that the party shouldn’t have to choose between Ted Stevens or Tom Coburn. When it comes to voting on earmarks (wasteful government spending), members of both the House and Senate should all be on the same page - voting nay.
If they can’t come together on even the most fundamental core issues, what’s the point of even having a party?
Some people might disagree with me on this, but I don’t see any value in having “part time Republicans” serving in the Senate. I’d rather the Democrats have a super majority with a small group of principled Republicans bringing reason to the floor each session than deal with some of the the unpredictable RINO’s that we have now.
Five Reasons Why Congress’ Approval Rating is Below 10%
Rasmussen Reports released a new survey today that showed Congress has reached an all time low, receiving a dismal 9% approval rating. FreedomTalks has come up with a list of just a few possible reasons why that might be. Click here to read more.
