It’s good to be the king, uh, president.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Wonder if Billary will return the $31 million dollar donation?

Vanity Fair

“It’s okay. And we’re not hung up about it. And we won anyway. We fought hard. And we won.”

In other words, We are running for president. Not Hillary. Not the junior senator from New York. But We—Bill and Hillary—in a de facto end-run around the 22nd Amendment.

Thomas Sowell on National Review

Unlike Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton before him, Obama has not been running as a black candidate for symbolic purposes but as a serious contender who happens to be black.

Frank Rich in the NY Times

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia.

Billary distorts Obama’s record and tells lies, followed by a tomahawk dunk of recording straightening by Obama. I watched about a 1/3 of the debate and Obama was by far the least nauseating candidate, least scripted, least shrill, and most intelligent.

Sometimes spending too much time following politics is bad for your mental health. The last year the public has been presented with a multitude of foolish forums termed debates in order to, in my estimation, convince the American public that there are competent politicians in both parties. About 8 months ago, I reached my limit. It felt like a shell game. As an immigration bill was hotly debated in the Senate, a democratic forum for blacks was held and not a single question was asked regarding this important and pertinent issue, despite the fact that one of the questioners wrote about immigration on a regular basis.

I remember when a good friend of mine wrote his letter of intent for graduate school a careful reader noted that “I” constituted 7% of the words of the letter. It’s too bad no one can put a word count and editor on Hillary Clinton’s mouth. When the former prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated, Hillary Clinton said in New Hampshire, “I knew Benazir Bhutto for…12 years”. No matter the topic, it always starts and ends with Hillary and her large blue dress sized sense of entitlement. Bill Clinton’s recent bullying of reporters and, apparently, primary voters if laughable if it weren’t so sad. He must chuckle at least once a day over the 22nd amendment to the constitution.. The operable word in the Obama campaign has, by comparison, has always been “You”. Something Democrat rank and file should think about.

I spoke with my Dad today and we talked politics.  I asked who he liked for President, and he said, “McCain, he was a soldier, and a prisoner of war for five years.”  Well, I guess I could have talked about the nuance of McCain-Feingold, and McCain’s opposition to tax cuts, his recent infatuation with increased regulation of the energy sector.  All of it would fall on deaf ears.  He was a soldier and prisoner of war for five years, and no other candidate had to sacrifice as much for America as he did.  Apparently, about 30% of Republicans feel the same way.

He may be an executive now but Spitzer’s big pitch on reforming immigration, a plan which runs to the left of George W Bush’s own quasi-amnesty, is falling quite flat. This is happening in one of the most liberal states of the union, but one which was victimized, in part, by those who had easy access to fraudulent visas, and exploited that weakness to terrorize Americans. Spitzer’s plan simply makes no sense, and the Billary juggernaut was even taken to task on it in the press. Will a Democrat nominee run to the left of Bush and Guiliani on immigration?

In my opinion, any democrat who opposes amnesty has a slam dunk chance of winning the White House. Too bad they, especially Hillary, are far too invested in amnesty.

“Sunday was lethargic from the beginning as I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially,” Ms. Rodham reported in a letter postmarked Oct. 3, 1967.

Forty years on, not much has changed.

Try this:

“She wrote of being a little girl and believing that she was the only person in the universe. She had a sense that if she turned around quickly, ‘everyone else would disappear.’”

Yep, sounds right.

Rodham’s philosophy

From a fundraiser for Billary:

He recalled a saying, “buy stock in a company that’s so good that an idiot can run it, because sooner or later one will.” When he added, “now I think that sort of applies to the country too, actually,” the audience burst out laughing.

“We have an opportunity in 2008 to repair a lot of damage,” Buffett said, referring to the election to replace Republican President George W. Bush.

No doubt a great big chunk of damage comes from a repeal of the death tax, right Mr. Buffett?

I received an email from my good friend Tom regarding the new movie Sicko.

John,

I watched Sicko earlier today; it was really illuminating (and sad). Have you heard of it? It’s Michael Moore’s new piece about the health care industry in the US.

Yes, I know how you feel about him. Yes, he uses a lot of his usual antics and rhetoric. Yes, you will likely find some and perhaps even most of them irritating.

With all of that said, there is a one big shock: for the most part he is fair and non-partisan, perhaps for the first time ever. He mostly avoids partisan issues, choosing to focus his attention elsewhere, but, being Moore, he of course can’t resist a few digs, especially against politicians bought too easily (and cheaply) by lobbyists. But, believe it or not, one of those receiving the harshest smack-down is his previously beloved Hillary. Apparently, hell has frozen over. Or maybe Moore has finally sobered up and looked around. (I confess while finding Hillary irritating and irksome at times, I once admired certain aspects of her platform long ago– especially regarding health care reform– but I feel she has long since lost her way).

The movie unabashedly makes a case for socialized health care, so you deserve to know that in advance, since I have gathered you are opposed to it. With that said, I hope you might be willing to watch the movie regardless. If nothing else, it pays to know what your enemies are up to.

The movie opens next Friday, and I am seriously considering footing the bill for anyone who wants to see it.*

I will likely see it and you are invited, although I suspect your interest might be limited because it’s a Moore film. If so, I cannot entirely fault you for that–his usual antics are on full display, and while I find a lot of his orneriness amusing, I well understand you and many others find his antics (and him) obnoxious. These days, I think many perceive Moore as more of an entertainer that panders to the left than as a bona fide journalist. I would, in fact, largely agree with this assessment.

Consequently, in many ways I wish someone else had made this film, because the issues it raises are important for everyone, regardless of which way a person leans politically. The whole nation needs to be having some sort of dialogue about these issues, and Moore is so thoroughly branded as a left-winger (or maybe even as a left-wingnut?) that I think the fact his name is attached to the movie will just polarize the issue politically, which would be a shame. Health care reform deserves bipartisan discussion and support–as a nation, we have got to transcend political differences on this issue. I can tell you firsthand that the current system destroys families and lives in a brutal and vicious way.

Too many people will miss this documentary because of who made it, and that is a shame and makes me wish almost anyone else had filmed it. But, with that said, I am glad that at least someone made this movie, even if it had to be done by Moore.

My reply:

One of the earliest free health care demagogues was Huey Long. Louisiana used to have charity hospitals all over the state, with 14 in New Orleans alone. During the last oil boom of the ’70s (during stagflation for the rest of the country) Louisiana was hopping. Without fail following an increase in oil prices Louisiana would elect a Huey Long style populist that demanded more money for charity hospitals. Even before Katrina the charity hospitals in Louisiana had conditions that were similar to that of the VA system in Washington D.C.

Now, the new populism advocates not for free health care (the results of which is plain to see in Sicko), but free health insurance for all. Somehow this will equate to Doctors not making mistakes or shortening ER lines.

If some health care socialization bill passes I’ll be ok, I can always bolt-hole to Taiwan. They have universal health care, but not the entitlement mindset found here, Canada, Western Europe (yet). Doctors there see 4X the patients and get 1/4 the pay as American doctors. Universal health care didn’t improve things there (the health care system was good already), but it did ratchet up the burden on the doctors I know there.

There is a long list of things the government is in charge of that are run inefficiently, and quite horribly. Public Schools and VA hospitals are two examples I can think of right quickly.

Just because something works for a small, homogenous western European nation doesn’t mean it will work here. Watch and see as those countries become less homogenous (via low birthrates and high immigration), as socialism as risk aversion (between homogenous classes and ethnicities) gives way to socialism as redistribution (from wealthy natives to poor African and Middle Eastern immigrants), you will soon see a change in policy there. The French electorate recently, and overwhelmingly, rejected the nanny state socialism Moore adores. As such, the French are so entrenched in the welfare state it will be hard to reverse course for a while.

And don’t get me started on Britain. They recently passed a law allowing citizens to go to other countries to receive health care on the government dime, acknowledging the severe limitations of their own impoverished system.

In Canada a citizen needed a Supreme Court ruling to allow a citizen to pay out of pocket for health care expenses. A single payer program would provide this kind of monopsony power to our federal government.

So, I’ll spare myself the anecdotal demagoguery this go ’round. There was a time when Huey Long/FDR style populism was what the doctor ordered. I don’t think that is the case today.

*This offer only applies to Logipundit Gold level members. Direct all inquiries about Gold and Platinum level membership with an email to the editor with credit card or routing and checking account number in the subject line.