Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The Audacity of Audacity
Posted by: McQ
Ed Morrisey, after hearing Tim Kaine's remarks on the Russo-Georgian war, thinks he'd be perfect as Obama's running mate.
Said Kaine:
It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I'm very, very happy that the Senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.
Hubris, thy name Obama.
McCain Leads the Way
One of the most striking features of the crisis in Georgia has been the role played by John McCain. While President Bush was enjoying the Olympics and Barack Obama was on vacation in Hawaii, McCain became the leading international spokesman on behalf of Georgia. While Obama initially parroted the Russian line, so that he was soon required to flip-flop--what a surprise!--McCain saw the crisis from the beginning as a clear case of Russian aggression, and understood the strategic implications of that aggression.
Today, in a speech in York, Pennsylvania, McCain continued his role as the strongest advocate for Georgian independence. His remarks were so cogent and so eloquent that I will quote them almost in full:
Georgia itself, my friends, has a long and remarkable history. It was a fourth-century convert to Christianity, one of the first nations on Earth to convert to Christianity -- if you go to Georgia, as I have several times, you'll see churches that go back to the fourth- and fifth-century -- and it's been a part of the grand sweep that comprises Western civilization. But because of their location, their history hasn't been easy. Through the centuries, they have seen invasions and attacks from Mongols, Russians, Turks and Persians. And through it all, they maintain their language, their cultural identity, and their national pride. And as you know, they were part of the Soviet Union and were able to achieve their independence when the Soviet Union disintegrated. And they're facing terrible trials today, but they'll get through this, too.
And, my friends, and I'll talk about this more in a minute -- but they're at a strategic crossroads. There's a pipeline, an oil pipeline, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, which brings oil from the Caspian to points west and traverses Georgia -- that's the very pipeline that the Russians tried to bomb. And I don't have to tell you about the price of oil and disruption of oil supplies.
In this country -- it's that little country, a country whose territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty NATO countries reaffirmed at their summit in April -- terrible violence has occurred. Now let me just remind you exactly what has taken place here.
On Friday, Russian tanks and troops moved through the Roki Tunnel, across an internationally-recognized border, and into the Georgian province of South Ossetia. Two years ago, I traveled to South Ossetia, my friends, and we went through this barricade, and as soon as we got into this place, which the Russians are maintaining hundreds and now thousands of troops, there's this huge billboard and it said, 'Vladimir Putin, Our President.' Have no doubt about Russian ambitions in this area.
The Russian government stated it was acting only to protect Ossetians, and yet, on Saturday, its bombing campaign encompassed the whole of Georgia. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been wounded and killed -- possibly thousands. Military bases, apartment buildings, and other infrastructure all came under Russian fire. And the Russian Black Sea Fleet began concentrating off of the Georgian coast.
Before the weekend ended, Russian troops drove the Georgians out of South Ossetia and stepped up their offensive in the region of Abkhazia -- Abkhazia is another area that the Russians have controlled in violation of Georgian territorial integrity. And Georgia asked for a ceasefire, and Russia responded by bombing the Tbilisi Airport.
Yesterday, Russian troops advanced on one city after another. Gori, Senaki, Poti, and other cities were attacked. In 2006, I visited Senaki and reviewed the Georgian troops who had served with honor beside American soldiers in Iraq -- 2,000 of them served beside American soldiers in Iraq, and we're proud of that.
President Medvedev stated that he has halted the offensive, but reports indicate that Russian military forces have continued attacks in some areas and the situation remains fluid and dangerous. Foreign Minister [Lavrov] announced that Russia seeks regime change in Georgia, and that it's democratically-elected president 'better go.'
In the face of this threat, the leaders of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Latvia -- you know there's a common thread there amongst them, they all suffered under Soviet domination -- they've all announced that they'll travel to the region, and the French president is in Moscow in an attempt to help resolve the crisis. They understand that it's a responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to record reform and make progress toward respecting the values and security of all free people.
This is the situation in Georgia as we meet here this morning. The impact of Russian actions goes beyond their threat to a democratic Georgia. Russia has used violence against Georgia to send a signal to any country that chooses to associate with the West and aspire to our shared political and economic values.
My friends, we learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked. With our allies, we must stand in united purpose to persuade the Russian government to withdraw its troops from Georgia. There must be an independent, international peacekeeping force in the separatist regions. And we should ensure that humanitarian aid can be airlifted to Georgia's capital, and stand ready to help our Georgian partners put their country back together. And we must make clear to Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability, and piece of that world.
My friends, today the killing goes on and aggression goes on. Yet, I know from speaking this morning to the President of Georgia, Misha Saakashvili, who I've known for many years, that he knows that the thoughts and the prayers and support of the American people are with that brave little nation as they struggle today for their freedom and independence. And he wanted me to say thank you to you, to give you his heartfelt thanks for the support of the American people for this tiny little democracy far away from the United States of America. And I told him that I know I speak for every American when I say to him, today, we are all Georgians.
You can watch McCain's speech here.
Georgia's President, Mikheil Saakashvili, addressed a rally in Tbilisi today. He, too, talked about his conversation with McCain earlier in the day:
Today, John McCain said that Americans are supporting Georgia. McCain said, we are Georgians today, everybody are Georgians today.
It has been an extraordinary moment, in which John McCain has seemed almost more the leader of the free world than the President. You can be sure that in November, Saakashvili and Vladimir Putin will be following our election results with equal attention.
To comment on this post go here.[/i\
Clark is a serious wack job
And it's just as clear that a toothless Bush administration can't do a f*ckin' thing about it.
Again with the macho posturing. What is it your compensating for that you constantly feel that need??
I was talking about the morality in question of Russia attacking another sovereign nation and you come bsck with macho posturing
Even given that Georgia led things off, was Russias incursion into Georgia justified
Be careful here, because you assume that Israel taking land won in a war is not justified, now you're saying here that Russia is justified in going into Georgia
And I'm sure in your bizarro world you see no contradiction
how many pardons can we expect from BushCo before his sorry ass is finally given the boot?
I'd reckon less than Bubba and none as odious as the Rich pardon
Welcome to bizarro world where Iran is a nice guy being picked upon and the Israelis are relentlessly expanding their territory even though they have ceded land in a misplaced attempt to buy peace
"Sure, because arming them and sending them to stick a finger in Russia's eye has worked out pretty well so far. If I'm not mistaken they're probably less in hock than us. Let them pay to rebuild. In case you missed it, they kicked off the shootin' war here."
Now it's the Russians who are the new good guys just protecting their integrity
IT's clear from the scope of their attack that they had been planning this action for months
The sole reason being the pipeline that runs through Georgia and the fact that they are pro Western and considering joining NATO.
I guess in your mind they'd be justified in going into Ukraine next
Amazing how you whine about the US action in Iraq then can turn around and justify Russia attacking a sovereign nation.
At least your consistent- your always wrong
Ah yes, the rule of law only applies when it's being applied to reps, right?
The civil case was thrown out of court. Remember the threshold for civil cases is a lot lower than criminal cases ( remember OJ- guilty in the civil case ).
Libby was never convicted of breaking the FISA law.
Hysterical that you are the one talking about integrity
A Bad Day for the Left Gets Worse: Plame Suit Dismissed
First, Michael Mukasey says there will be no prosecutions forthcoming in the Justice Department nonscandal, and now comes the delicious news that non-undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame has her bogus lawsuit against Vice President Cheney dismissed.
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public.
The Court of Appeals in Washington dealt another setback to the former spy, who has said her career was destroyed when officials blew her cover in 2003 to retaliate against her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.
Plame's outing led a lengthy criminal investigation, which resulted in the conviction of Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice.
President George W. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence last year.
Plame and Wilson sought money damages from Cheney, Libby, former White House aide Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights.
But a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal judge's ruling that dismissed the couple's lawsuit.
The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.
Expect another round of fawning interviews with the usual suspects for this annoying media whore and her two-bit fraud husband.
Update: Glenn Reynolds says it's Fitzmas for the rest of us.
As if France has any kind of moral authority- you're such a tool.
If you the capacity to read what's going on, you'd see that the Euro's are actually capitulating to the Russians to protect their oil supply
But, just bot on Peggie
Nonsense- it was the FEd priming the printing presses after the peso crisis and their continued pumping in the face of "irrational exuberance " that allowed it to continue. Segue to the housing boom- same irrationality but on a larger scale
Not surprised to hear you feeding off the govt teat- and then you complain about the deficits
You are so conditioned to thinking in your 60's stoner haze that it was the govt that actually creates value and wealth. The Internet was a boom because it served a revolutionary function. If you believe the govt created that boom, you're probably stupid enough to believe in manmade CO2 causing global warming......and I guess you also believe Al Gore DID create the Internet
RUSSIA GOES ROGUE
. . . AND AMERICA WIMPS OUT
By RALPH PETERS
Posted: 3:52 am
August 12, 2008
IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's un folding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal.
The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating.
This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention).
Georgia's affiliation with the European Union, its status as a would-be NATO member, its working democracy - none of it deterred Putin.
Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Kremlin is telling Europe: We not only have the power to turn off Siberian gas, we can turn off every tap in the region, any time we choose.
Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.
As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.
The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.
Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."
Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people.
But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.
The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart. And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.
Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.
This is the most cynical military operation by a "European" power since Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979. (Sad to say, President Bush seems as bewildered now as President Jimmy Carter did then.)
This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)
This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.
It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.)
Yet our media give Putin the benefit of the doubt. Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide.
I lack sufficiently powerful words to express my outrage over Russia's bloody cynicism in attacking a small, free people, or to castigate our media for their inane coverage - or to condemn our own government's shameful flight from responsibility.
Just as Moscow has reverted to its old habit of sending in tanks to snuff out freedom, Washington has defaulted to form by abandoning Georgia to the invasion - after encouraging Georgia to stand up to the Kremlin.
Reminds me of 1956, when we encouraged the Hungarians to defy Moscow - then abandoned them. And of 1991, when we prodded Iraq's Shia to rise up against Saddam - then abandoned them. We've called Georgia a "friend and ally." Well, honorable men and states stand by their friends and allies. We haven't.
Oh, we sure are giving those Russians a tongue-lashing. I'll bet Putin's just shaking as he faces the awesome verbal rage of Condi Rice. President Bush? He went to a basketball game.
The only decent thing we've done was to reveal, at the UN, that the Russians tried to cut a deal with us to remove Georgia's president.
Shame on us.
Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking for Trouble," details his own adventures in Georgia.
THE BEAR'S MILITARY MESS
RUSSIA's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because Moscow has applied overwhelming force.
This campaign was supposed to be the big debut for the Kremlin's revitalized armed forces (funded by the country's new petro-wealth). Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time.
It can hammer tiny Georgia into submission - but this campaign unintentionally reveals plenty of enduring Russian weaknesses.
The most visible failings are those of the air force. Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting.
All those strikes on civilian apartment buildings and other non-military targets? Some may be intentional (the Russians aren't above terror-bombing), but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared.
They're missing pipelines, rail lines and oil-storage facilities - just dumping their bombs as quickly as they can and heading home.
Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm.
As one US officer observed to me, the Russian pilots are neither professionally nor emotionally toughened for their missions. Their equipment's pretty good (not as good as ours), but their training lags - and their pilots log far fewer flight hours than ours do.
Russia has been planning and organizing this invasion for months. And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.
VIEW FULL ARTICLE >
IF ti was wrong when the US did it, why can't you condemn Russia for their invasion of another country??
Could it be you're just not programmed to criticize anyone but the US?
Your the joke- why can't you even answer a simple question
I wasn't asking about Bush's moral authority or about Iraq.
The point of the question was to point out your ( typical liberal ) hypocrisy and you certainly didn't fail
This situation is exactly analogous to the one you've been raving about for 5 years. A large powerful nation invading a smaller on for oil
And you don't have the ethical integrity to condemn it
Tool
Just asking your opinion- of course what you're OK with really doesn't matter
Are you OK with Russia invading another sovereign nation for it's oil pipeline??
Should we/NATO/the UN send troops??
Ah, so you're OK with a larger nation invading a smaller nation when oil ( pipelines ) are involved as a prize?
Shocking
What would YOU do about Russia invading a sovereign nation?
Is Accountable America Blatantly Violating The Law? (Updated)
Posted by: MichaelW
While these sorts of cases are rarely 100% clear, given the group's admissions in the NYT, it sure looks to me like the liberal group is in direct and knowing violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ....
What is Accountable America doing that violates the act? They are specifically targeting donors to Republican candidates with a systematic campaign of intimidation and thinly veiled threats (emphasis added):
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding "warning" letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.
"We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground," said Mr. Matzzie, who described his effort as "going for the jugular."
The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.
In sum, Accountable America openly plans to intimidate supporters of Republican candidates into refraining from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. That seems like a pretty blatant violation of the statute (among potentially others) if you ask me.
To put the shoe on the other foot, is there any doubt that an orchestrated campaign by right-wing groups to "chill" support for Democratic candidates would be met with howls of "intimidation" and "voter suppression"? No, there's not, and moreover such claims would be entirely correct.
Furthermore, with respect to Accountable America's stated goals, they appear to be directly contradicted by the NYT piece (underline added):
Our first project seeks to discourage groups and right-wing donors trying to "swiftboat" progressives. We aim to educate the public about the connections between these donors, many with unsavory business and personal stories, and lawmakers in Washington.
Accountable America is a non-partisan, non-profit corporation. We do not seek to elect or defeat candidates or endorse candidates for federal office.
However, per the NYT:
The group is also hoping to be able to respond if an outside conservative group broadcasts a television advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama, or another Democratic candidate, by running commercials exposing the donors behind the advertisements.
How is it non-partisan to openly and unapologetically defend only Democratic candidates? Short answer: it's not. To be clear, I believe there are exceptions for "general issue advocacy" (or some similar phrase) which exempt certain ads from campaign finance restrictions, provided that certain conditions are met (e.g. not mentioning a particular candidate). However, when the stated aim is to defend only Democratic candidates it's nigh on impossible to conclude anything other than that the group endorses the Democratic candidate.
Finally, judging by what Accountable America claims is its purpose, it may not actually qualify for 501(c)(4) treatment. Although this can be quite vague, generally speaking such organizations are not restricted in their political campaign activity, provided that such activity is "consistent with the organization's exempt purpose." However, according to Treasury Regulations, "participating in campaign activity cannot be the organization's primary activity." The regulations themselves state that 501(c)(4) exemptions cannot include:
Direct or indirect participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office
In this case, Accountable America's own claims seem to state that its sole purpose is to oppose Republican candidates and support Democratic ones. Accordingly, it is highly questionable whether or not its activities are legally exempt from taxation, or that it can benefit from the protections afforded by the statute when it comes to things like keeping its own donors anonymous.
I can't say for sure whether any of these apparent problems are valid or not, but at face value there sure do seem to be serious issues with what Accountable America is doing. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of organization, maybe even one that's profit oriented, who would investigate and report on issues like this? We could call such people "reporters" or something. Yeah, I know, silly idea.
UPDATE: From the comments, Neo finds another law possibly being violated by Accountable America.
42 U.S. Code § 1985:
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
In fact, the avowed purpose of Accountable America looks to be a more direct violation of this statute than the one I originally cited. To be sure, I'm not sure how the "toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector" language is interpreted, but it would be an odd hair to split to say that intimidating supporters of Republican candidates for office is somehow different than supporting the electors. Either way, there seems to be enough questions about the propriety of Accountable America's undertaking to at least merit an investigation.
McCain prescient on Russia?
When violence broke out in the Caucasus on Friday morning, John McCain quickly issued a statement that was far more strident toward the Russians than that of President Bush, Barack Obama and much of the West.
But, as Russian warplanes pounded Georgian targets far beyond South Ossetia this weekend, Bush, Obama and others have moved closer to McCain's initial position.
It has been a rough few weeks for McCain on the foreign policy front — paging Dr. Maliki — but he appears to have been ahead of the curve in his assessment that Moscow was the bad actor here.
McCain aides feel encouraged that their candidate appeared to get it right first, and they are now working to remind reporters that he's long been wary of Putin's Russia.
Pushing the prescience line, aides are circulating a pair of YouTube clips from 1999 and 2000 that feature some tough talk from McCain about the new Kremlin regime.
Speaking about Chechnya in an appearance at Arizona State University in 1999, McCain said: "The mindless slaughter is being conducted by a Russian military that seeks to reassert itself not only in the former Soviet Union but also to extend its reach throughout what used to be the former Soviet Union in an attempt to fold back into the Russian empire those countries that have broken away from it, most notably Georgia."
And, in the memorable South Carolina primary debate in 2000, McCain offered grave skepticism about the new Russian leader, referring to Putin as an "apparatchik."
Fear and loathing … in the Democratic Party
posted at 12:00 pm on August 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Barack Obama has twiced smeared John McCain and the Republican Party as racist and fearmongering — but perhaps that may be better explained as projection. The Atlantic plans to publish internal memos from the Hillary Clinton campaign in its September edition, and Politico reports that a campaign strategy of xenophobia didn’t come from the GOP. The Clinton campaign suggested painting Obama as un-American:
Mark Penn, the top campaign strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, advised her to portray Barack Obama as having a “limited” connection “to basic American values and culture,” according to a forthcoming article in The Atlantic.
The magazine reports Penn suggested getting much rougher with Obama in a memo on March 30, after her crucial wins in Texas and Ohio: “Does anyone believe that it is possible to win the nomination without, over these next two months, raising all these issues on him? … Won’t a single tape of [the Reverend Jeremiah] Wright going off on America with Obama sitting there be a game ender?” …
Penn, the presidential campaign’s chief strategist, wrote in a memo to Clinton excerpted in the article: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”
Hammering Obama on Jeremiah Wright? Looking for video of the Obamas nodding approvingly to Wright’s demagoguic tirades on race and America? It didn’t start with the Republicans at all; it started with the Clintonites. Furthermore, the Clintonites apparently agreed with Republicans in their assessment of Obama and his long-time association with anti-American radicals like Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. They concluded that Obama is “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”
Democrats came to that conclusion long before Republicans even worried about Obama. In March 2007, Penn warned Clinton’s team to focus on values-based voters, women, and working- to middle-class families. That strategy finally got adopted in February 2008, when it was just a little too late to help, but Penn saw Obama’s flaws very clearly even in the early stages of the race.
Some have suggested that the release of these memos during the convention will help Barack Obama by marginalizing the PUMAs in the Democratic Party. That could happen, but it seems more likely that these memos will confirm their own judgment of Obama, and help define him among centrists and independents. Having that message not just confirmed by longtime Democratic strategists but actually originated by them will lend these conclusions a great deal more credibility.
It will also have one other effect, and that’s to put the race card out of reach for Barack Obama. He can’t call McCain a racist and a fearmonger again without first pointing the finger publicly to the Clintons, who obviously went a lot farther than McCain would ever countenance along those lines. (McCain all but forbid the mention of Jeremiah Wright by his campaign or surrogates.)
This could also rip the veneer of inclusionism off of identity politics and expose it for the tribalism that it is. These memos and the Democratic infighting demonstrate the corrosiveness of identity politics and its eventual outcome — division, bitterness, and loss. That will help improve American politics in the long run as we focus on ideas and philosophy, and not the color of skin, internal plumbing, or ethnicity of our great-grandparents.
Update (AP): I doubt this will give Team Barry pause before dropping any sinister new hints about Republican racism. Most of that is done on background with the media anyway so they don’t have to worry about being called on the hypocrisy, but to the extent that anything is said publicly, all they have to do is tweak the message. Instead of “McCain’s a racist,” now maybe there’ll be some oblique reference to how “sadly, no party or ideology is immune from the scourge of racism,” followed promptly by “and also, McCain’s a racist.” Remember, it’s already conventional wisdom on the left that the Clintons ran an explicitly racial strategy in the primary (mostly via Bill’s mad libs). That didn’t stop Obama from floating his “dollar bill” comment a few weeks ago.
Republican Sen. John McCain: “Taking in my opponent’s performances is a little like watching a big summer blockbuster, and an hour in, realizing that all the best scenes were in the trailer you saw last fall.”
Does O Understand Anything About Ballistic Missile Defense?
By James Lewis
If the Middle East -- and the rest of the world -- survives the aggressive rise of Iranian nukes and missiles, it will be thanks to Ballistic Missile Defense -- a completely new technology that is just being put into place. The next ten years will tell the story.
It's already evident that Mr. Obama doesn't understand a lot about oil, coal and natural gas, the three key fuels of the world economy. Senator O doesn't know much about General Petraeus' surge in Iraq -- a fundamental change in warfighting tactics, not just a surge in troop strength, as the media seem to think.
Barack Obama has odd ideas about average Americans, and has a tendency to sneer at the rest of us. Barack and Michelle seem to be totally obsessed with race, the greatest sin of our age according to liberals. In sum, the Obamas seem mentally boxed into a very narrow liberal faith on all those issues. Senator Joe Lieberman recently said, "I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."
Still, Obama could still win. Call it fifty-fifty right now.
My biggest question therefore is this: Does Obama understand anything, anything at all, about the most important new defense technology since World War II? I refer to Ballistic Missile Defense, a historic achievement of this administration -- based on decades of high-priority research going back to Ronald Reagan. Forget Iraq, forget everything else President Bush has tried to do. If BMD works, it will be far and away the greatest gift of the last eight years. Future generations will live in safety because George W. Bush insisted on pushing BMD as one of his top priorities.
The United States now has the first tested, world-wide defensive system against a ballistic missile threats from mad regimes like North Korea and Iran. This is an amazing technology, ranging from Aegis Navy ships that can bring down missiles in mid-flight with SM-3 bullet-on-bullet defenses, to a worldwide radar-and-satellite missile detection system, an emerging Boeing-747-based high-powered laser beam to shoot down multiple missile targets, to regional defense by Patriot-3s, Arrow missiles, and in the foreseeable future, shaped radar beams. An Iranian Shahab-3 attack on Tel Aviv would now have to run a gauntlet of missile defenses from Aegis ships in the Gulf to Arrows, PAC-3s and SM-3s in and near Israel. We can now put such ship, air and land-based regional defenses almost anywhere in the world. The American homeland has its first effective missile defenses against a limited attack.
This is all clearly understood by other threatened nations, like Japan, Israel, and India. They are jumping on BMD technology. They know their necks are on the line; so is ours.
It is crucial to keep pushing those weapon systems as fast as possible over the next decade, as high-powered laser defenses are brought from the lab to the field. In ten years we may finally be safe again, after a 70-year Age of Nuclear Anxiety. Since 1949 a nuclear aggressor has been unstoppable; all we had was the threat of complete nuclear wipeout to counter a possible attack. By 2009 the Iranian martyrdom cult will have its first nuclear bomb. The next decade will therefore see a screaming end-game to the Age of Anxiety -- a nose-to-nose race between mad aggressors finally getting their nukes, and saner nations obtaining nearly fool-proof defenses.
BMD is the only practical answer to the uncontrolled spread of nukes to mad regimes. We can make it all work, if and only if our leaders understand the urgency of the problem and its emerging technical solutions. That is why Obama has to get this one, and get it right --- unlike all the Leftist politicians who've fought against BMD since Ronald Reagan.
So this is not a small question. So far, Barack Obama has blown it on the most important survival issue of the age. In his victory lap in Europe he failed to back the Czech radars that will protect Europe from Iranian missiles. But Mr. O is nothing if not flexible. If he ever gets it about how vital this is, he could quickly switch to a sane position.
Since Senator O is a creature of the Left, the whole world could be in grave danger if he becomes President and the Dems control Congress. They could still kill our last best hope for safety. Or they could just slow and sabotage our defense buildup, as they have consistently tried to do in the past.
Ballistic Missile Defense is the biggest do-or-die question in the next decade. John McCain understands that. So far, Barack Obama doesn't have a clue. That gives us a 50-50 chance of being blackmailed by the likes of Ahmadinejad and his guru, Ayatollah Khamenei. Obama doesn't even have to stand up against the Islamofascists of Tehran; all he has to do is keep our buildup on course. Between the Israelis, who have national survival on the line, the Saudis, who are 50 miles from Iran, and the Europeans, other Arabs, who are finally understanding the threat to their own survival, our allies will keep us focused. But the US is the only country with the technical prowess to win the race against the rogue regimes.
So I come back to the biggest question: Does O understand anything about Ballistic Missile Defense? So far he hasn't shown any sign of it.
If national survival matters, that leaves us with only one choice in the fall.
How to anger conservatives into action
posted at 9:35 am on August 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Try sending them a letter in an attempt to intimidate them into silence:
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions. …
The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.
Sorry, but if you think brown-shirt intimidation letters from lunatic Lefties such as yourself will frighten conservatives into silence, then you don’t know squat. Conservatives persevere despite media scorn, Hollywood demonizing, and lunatic protests outside our conventions. A “foreboding warning letter” won’t scare them, especially from someone who couldn’t make Progressive Media USA survive in a progressive-friendly cycle.
In fact, such fascistic tactics will have the reverse effect. Conservative activists have mostly stayed on the sidelines in this election, frustrated by the nomination of John McCain and a Congress that won’t stop spending money. Threats from the Left will convince them that they need to get into the fight just to make sure that the Left’s candidate for President loses the election.
So send out those “warning letters”, please, and remind them all of what the Left will do when it takes full control of the government. Keep issuing extortionist threats to people who engage in political life, and keep revealing your true nature. Motivate conservatives to get back into action.
This sounds like another one of Mattzie’s ill-considered ventures. He blew $12 million in funding for his anti-war group last year, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and showed nothing for his efforts. He also was involved in MoveOn’s preposterous General Betray-Us ad last September. The biggest surprise is that Mattzie still finds fools with money that need parting.
How Soon Could We Pump Oil?
Opponents of energy development like to claim that it is hopeless to drill for oil, since it would take so long to get it flowing. Barack Obama, for example, recently claimed that if Congress lifts the offshore drilling ban, it will take seven years to get any oil. Obama supported this assertion by misrepresenting a report by the Energy Information Administration. If you read this post, you already know how the Left is misusing that report.
Today the Institute for Energy Research followed up with more information about misuse of that report. I want to focus on this point:
EIA’s analysis assumes that leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Yet, off the coast of California, some of these resources have already been leased. A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium.
There are other areas, too, where pumping could begin in months, not years. Obviously full exploitation of our energy resources will take longer. But that is an argument for starting quickly, not an argument for delay. And we can at least begin to get relief from high energy costs quite rapidly.
Bad Economy May Hurt Obama
By Dick Morris
The conventional wisdom has it down pat: A bad economy works against the candidate from the party in power as voters take out their rage and fear on the president’s party and back the challenger, just like they did in 1992. But this is not a normal economic slowdown (or recession) and Obama is not a normal challenger. I think the conventional wisdom may be dead wrong.
It is not so much that unemployment is so high (5.7 percent) or that the economy is in the tank (1 percent growth this quarter) as it is that everything seems to be falling apart. Banks are under assault; mortgages are in default; quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailouts; financial institutions go hat in hand to foreign sovereign wealth funds peddling shares of their equity in return for desperately needed cash; the cost of filling a gas tank has tripled. It is not the present circumstances that have voters freaked, it is the threats that seem to loom on the horizon.
And Obama is no ordinary challenger. Not like Bill Clinton, for example. In 1992, from the moment the campaign started, Clinton billed himself as the expert who could solve the economy’s problems. His promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn’t buy it and voted for Hillary.
So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?
Add to this backdrop Obama’s pledge to raise taxes and you have a combustible situation that could frighten American voters en masse. When, amid relative prosperity, Obama said he would restore fairness by raising taxes on the rich, it was well-received, particularly in the Democratic primary.
Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).
But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.
And, besides, when a candidate starts raising taxes, who knows where he will stop once he is in office?
McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama’s plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat’s claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.
It almost doesn’t matter that McCain is not an economist and avows ignorance of what Thomas Carlyle called the “dismal science.” We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won’t raise taxes.
Were these calmer times, with less of a threat from abroad and less economic danger, we might indulge our penchant for change and elect a neophyte in the hope that he will offer something different. We might be more easily captivated by his charisma. But, in these times, we may want to stay with the safer candidate.
Barack Obama's energy speech draws attention -- to his changing stances
Barack Obama surrogates fanned out on various TV interview shows today to discuss the dominant issue of the moment -- energy -- and to press the case that their candidate rose to the occasion Monday in layingPresumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama surveys the audience during a town hall style campaign stop in Ohio out a comprehensive policy in a high-profile speech in Michigan.
We have to wonder, though, if the much-vaunted Obama campaign team anticipated that print coverage would focus so heavily on his latest change of position in the energy debate -- his support for tapping the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserves to drive down the cost of gasoline.
Here were the leads from the big three dailies:
"With the politics of energy shifting as rapidly as gasoline prices, Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, are retreating from long-held positions and scrambling to offer distressed voters more immediate relief from spiraling costs." (Los Angeles Times)
"Sen. Barack Obama altered his position on Monday to call for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices as he outlined an energy plan that contrasts with Sen. John McCain’s greater emphasis on expanded offshore drilling and coal and nuclear technology." (New York Times)
"Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation's strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race." (Washington Post)
The first-day Associated Press story by Tom Raum, which no doubt was widely used by medium-sized and smaller newspapers, quickly drew attention to both Obama's shift on the petroleum reserves and his surprise support late last week for a compromise that would ease the long-standing federal ban on offshore oil drilling.
Obama's new proposal, Raum wrote, "includes two significant reversals ...
... of positions he has taken in the past: He had steadfastly fought the idea of limited new offshore drilling and was against tapping the nation's emergency oil stockpile to relieve pump prices that have stubbornly hovered around $4 a gallon."
In terms of opinion pieces on Obama's plan, his aides won't bat an eye at a bashing from the conservative New York Post, which began an editorial today: "One more week, one more Barack Obama reversal on a key issue. Actually, make that two reversals."
But Obama aides may have noticed -- and become concerned about -- the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial take: "Sen. Barack Obama's energy policy is offering more flip-flops than a Lake Tahoe souvenir stand."
That's not quite the narrative the Obama camp was looking for from his speech.
-- Don Frederick
Economists also say the "windfall" profit tax will only cause higher prices and that taking oil out of the strategic reserve would do no real good.
The gas tax holiday was a bad idea and Barry's 2 ideas are even worse
It just get worse and worse
Pretty soon Peg will be the only one left voting for him
Yep, but he has lobbyists on his staff collecting money
He's just a lightweight hack, admit it
get busy drilling on the land they already lease.
Even if they ahve determined there's not a viable source of oil there???
The leases are expensive and expire
Please explain why they would not drill a viable lease to increase their windfall profits?????
MAybe this will help ya get smarter:
Pelosi’s Politburo
Posted by: McQ
The prevaricating Pelosi showed up yesterday on George Stephanopolous's "This Week" and made a hash of it.
It is frustrating as can be to watch. Pelosi is just flat disengenuous when it comes to rational and valid reasons for the question of the day, "Why won't you let it come to a vote?"
Steffi asks it over and over again, and Pelosi avoids the ball better than any champion dodge ball player could ever hope to be able to do. Attempt one:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?
NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it.
Of course all of Pelosi's attempts have been "single shoot" attempts. And what Republicans have tried to do is amend the bills presented by Democrats to include drilling as a part of the package. Or said another way, precisely the opposite of Pelosi's claim.
And an additional point or two here. Pelosi is recommending leaving us strategically defenseless in terms of petroleum in order to reduce prices for a month or so. We use a total of 20.7 million barrels a day. If we drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and used it exclusively it would last about 30 days. That's why it is a Strategic Reserve. The thinking behind that is it would provide us a cushion in which to line up additional oil supplies if we were ever cut off from this or that foreign supplier. Instead, Pelosi is pushing for us to have no cushion so she can reduce some of the heat on her and the untenable position she has placed herself in.
Attempt two:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it's not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, "There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer." He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.
PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they're permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.
This is pure, unadulterated and ignorant populist rhetoric. Talking points. She keeps going back to a "larger energy package" and yet when Democrats passed the last energy bill out of Congress, no drilling was included. So that is pure smoke.
The oilman gambit is pure smoke as well. It may impress the economically illiterate, but it isn't going to convince anyone with an ounce of sense.
Lastly, the 68 million she continues to whine about is and always has been under the "use it or lose it" law. Oil companies have a certain length of time to explore and develop leases. If they don't do so within that time frame, it reverts to exclusive government control and they lose the lease price as well as the yearly rent they pay.
Attempt three:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?
PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it's not a solution.
This falls under "Nancy knows best". The fact is, we know that for the foreseeable future, oil and gas are going to be in the neighborhood of 80% of the total energy picture. This isn't just about "prices at the pump" right now, as Pelosi keeps insisting. It is about ensuring we have all th energy we require in the future. But to do that, we need to start now, and every day we delay it is another day in which prices are guaranteed to stay higher at the pump and our future remains in doubt as well.
Attempt four:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you're right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?
PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.
A planet to save? Ms. Short-sighted "pump the SPR dry" is suddenly worried about the planet? And if we have an economy to grow, would drilling help in that regard by providing jobs and revenue?
Well, yeah, but then again, there's a planet to save. Lord save me from the zealots.
Attempt five:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won't allow a vote on —
PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.
And we begin to see her repeat herself. What she won't admit with that litany is that other than herself, there's strong bipartisan support for drilling too.
Attempt six:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.
PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what's going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It's not to use a tactic of one — one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that's cheaper, better for the environment —
We're back to "Nancy knows best" and a completely distorted characterization of the reasons to drill. It has gone from reducing our dependence on foreign oil to reducing our dependence on fossil fuel. That after previously talking about drilling being a possibility in an overall energy package. Her position literally changes from minute to minute.
Attempt seven:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that "Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?
PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It's simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.
Shorter version: "I lied and they're going to have to trick me to get a vote".
Attempt eight:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?
PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that — you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel — I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.
Shorter version: "I'm lying again when I deny I won't allow a vote and then tell you why I won't allow a vote."
Attempt nine:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?
PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.
Translation: "Uh, yes, that's right - after all, this is not only for the planet but - say it with me - for the children".
Attempt ten:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's what I don't understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?
PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.
Because the President won't let "these things" go forward?
Incredible. Speaking of private sector efforts in renewable energies, I wonder if she even has a hint that the US oil and natural gas industries have invested almost $100 billion between 2000 and 2005 in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies from 2000 to 2006?
Nah ... they're just the bad guys in this little faux morality propaganda play that Pelosi is running. Speaking of energy, a friend who saw this little play remarked, "if brainpower was energy, Pelosi couldn't light a 3 watt bulb".
After reading through this, I think he's being generous.
Calling for drilling has nothing to do with other energy sources.
The other sources wont be ready for years- the same excuse that is used against drilling= the same tired argument that was stupidly used 10 years ago
Wind and solar won't be able to run cars/trucks even when they are actually a viable source
The market place will take care of deciding what sources make sense. Mandating flex fuel cars that would run on all the alternative fuels would allow the markets to develop.
All that's needed is for Pelosi and the dems to allow the market to work itself out. The gimmick here is that Pelosi and the dems don't care abut anything except maintaining control. Do you think they really Care bout the environment more than giving a political win to the reps?
I'm not surprised you don't really understand what's going on. The other dems running do and they will be bowing to pressure from the public who poll greatly in favor of more polling ( though as you say, polls don't mean anything anymore since they don't support your views
Trumped by the 8% for the Pelosi led Congress- how's that refusal to let a vote on new drilling working out for the dems????
They're gonna be running away from san fran nan
do yourself a favor, ignore ALL polls
LMAO
This from the pegbot who used the phrase " 33 % " probably 945,000 times on this board
Stupidest campaign video EVER
IS Zogby a conservative poll also???????????????????????????
LMAO
Obama stumbles, McCain surges in poll
Published Monday, August 4, 2008
by Herbert L. White
Presumptive presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama are in a statistical dead heat among likely voters, according to the latest Zogby International poll.
The national Associated TV/Zogby International telephone poll of 1,011 voters surveyed July 31-Aug. 1 finds McCain (R-Arizona) leading 42 percent to 41 percent over Obama (D-Ill.), which represents a sudden turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll of July 7-9 that showed Obama ahead, 46 to 36 percent in a four-way race with Libertarian Bob Barr of Georgia and liberal independent Ralph Nader. McCain made big gains among some of Obama’s strongest demographic groups – young adults, women and independents.
The survey, commissioned by Associated TV, included 1,011 likely voters and was conducted July 31-Aug. 1, The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.
McCain gained 20 percent while Obama lost 16 percent among voters ages 18-29. Obama still leads that group, 49 percent 38.
McCain closed 10 points on Obama among women, although Obama still leads by a 43 percent to 38 percent.
Obama and McCain are tied among independents after Obama held an 11-point lead. Even Democrats have cooled on Obama, dropping from 83 percent support to 74.
Among single voters, Obama’s support slid by 19 to a 51-37 advantage.
Even with African Americans and Hispanics, Obama showed smaller margins of support.
The poll follows what had been described as a blockbuster tour of the Middle East and Europe that was intended to boost Obama’s foreign policy profile. McCain used the trip as a launch pad to question whether Obama’s popularity abroad would translate into leadership at home.“
The McCain camp seems to have turned lemons into lemonade. Huge crowds and mostly favorable press reviews of Obama’s overseas trip have been trumped by McCain’s attacks on Obama,” said pollster John Zogby. “Loss of support for Obama among young voters may also be due to his perceived reversals on issues they care about, such as the war and government eavesdropping.”
The poll suggests McCain is making gains in winning key battleground states. His numbers improved most in the West and Middle America. Obama’s narrow lead in the central U.S. is now a 45 percent to 36 percent McCain lead. In the West, Obama’s 15-point lead has evaporated into a 43-40, McCain advantage
Catholics, who favored Obama by 11 points in mid-July, now favor McCain by 15 percent.
Obama has also slipped among college graduates and those with family incomes of $25,000-$35,000.
Good riddance
Why do you think it is that Barry is refusing the 10 town hall type debates that McCain wants and will agree to only 3 debates?????
Gee, amazing how with his horrible campaign Rasmussen has him ahead
Funny, huh?
John McCain says we need offshore oil drilling and we need it now. Senator Barack Obama has consistently opposed offshore drilling - calling it a "gimmick." Senator Obama's solution to high gas prices is telling Americans to make sure their tires are inflated.
Today, I'm asking for your help in putting Senator Obama's "tire gauge" energy policy to the test.With an immediate donation of $25 or more, we will send you an "Obama Energy Plan" tire pressure gauge. Will simply inflating your tires reduce the financial burden of high gas prices on your wallet?
It's clear Senator Obama has no plan to address the energy challenges we face as a nation. He has said no to offshore drilling, no to expanding domestic drilling and no to nuclear energy. He has no plan to reduce our dependence on foreign o
Also funny how it's McCain who's asking for 10 town hall debates that Barry is refusing to do
The opening statement:
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress.
So , how does taking away oil industry profits fall under " free markets "
Hmmmm?
they have thousands of oil leases they arent using
ANd why do you think that is?