You know the Obama campaign is seeing some baaaaad numbers over the last few days for Obama to come out and flip-flop on Wright: (via Michelle Malkin who liveblogged Obama’s speech)
“I’m outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate. I believe they do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. They certainly don’t portray mine. If he considers this political posturing, then he doesn’t know me very well. And I don’t know him well either.”
AIDS conspiracy: “Ridiculous proposition.”
Farrakhan support and analogy of Marines/terrorism: “They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. They should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing clearly and unequivocally here today.”
It’s antithetical to our campaign. It’s antithetical to what I’m about. It’s not what America stands for. Rev. Wright does not speak for me. He doesn’t speak for our campaign. I can’t prevent him from making these outrageous remarks…When I say I find these statements appalling, I mean it…Makes me angry and saddens me.”
Q&A.
1) Why the change in tone between now and yesterday? Obama: “I hadn’t seen it…He wasn’t just defending himself. He was presenting a worldview…What particularly angered me was the suggestion that my previous remarks were political posturing…”
Ok. Let’s be clear then: It wasn’t the fact that Wright has been spewing this same recycled crap for years that finally got Obama mad. It was that he finally realized it was hurting his campaign. And he was personally miffed by Wright’s insults against him.
2) What does this say about your judgment to superdelegates? “The person I saw was not the person that I’d come to know over 20 years…Shocked me, surprised me.”
2:11pm Eastern. “Now is the time to pull together.” Refers to dire economic situation. “That didn’t matter to Rev. Wright. What mattered to him was commanding center stage.”
“I don’t think he showed much concern for me…or for what we’re trying to do in this campaign.”
3) Question: Have you spoken with Wright? “No.”
BO: “This has obviously put strains on the relationship” between Obama and Trinity Church.
“I want people to understand who I am. In some ways, the things Wright said yesterday directly contradict my life, issues, service, what I’ve said in my books, in my convention speech, announcement for president, everything I’ve said on the campaign trail. What I tried to do in Philadelphia was provide a context and lift up some of the contradictions and complexities in America and try to make something constructive out of it. There wasn’t anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was was a bunch of rants that aren’t grounded in truth…It was a show of disprespect to me.”
5) Question: What did Michelle Obama think? BO: “She was similarly angered.”
6) Question: Do you agree with Wright that attacks on him are attacks on black church? How important is black liberation theology?
BO: “I’m not a theologian.”
But he’s the Obamessiah!
BO: “I went to church and listened to sermons. What I heard, there’s an emphasis on importance of social struggle, striving for equality, justice, fairness, a social gospel. Rather than fancy word like black liberation theology, he uses social gospel.” Didn’t view attacks as attacks on black church.
2:23pm Eastern. There have been unfair caricatures, but “yesterday, he caricatured himself.”
Obama says he tried contacting Wright before his Philadelphia speech. He was on a cruise. When he returned, they did speak. But Obama will not elaborate. “But what I can say is that I told him I found the snippets of past sermons inexcusable.”
“There’s been great damage” to relationship with Wright. “Won’t be the same.” Denies that Wright was his spiritual mentor. But he married Michelle and I, baptized my children, prayed with us, etc. etc.
So now that his campaign is getting hurt he throws his mentor under the bus as he did his grandma. What other way can you see it other then that? There is no way, no how, Obama did NOT know what Wright was like. His speech yesterday was no different then the sermons he spewed from his racist mouth for decades. Additionally, he says he is no theologian when the Church pushed that black liberation theology hard for years also. Puhlease.
And why now? Why not when the videos first saw the light of day? Or how about the 20 years he sat in the pews?
As Michelle said, its all bullcrap.
Allah also brings up a valid point. During this press conference today Obama spoke about how good this new pastor, Otis Moss, is. Good to know:
Typical politician bullcrap.
Check out Wordsmiths take on his waffling here.
UPDATE
Mataharley made the case yesterday that Wrights behavior may be some backroom shananigans to let Obama save face:
I’m wondering if Wright is set to become a future tool for Obama to formally “eject” in the near future (as a public thing anyway). Who knows, it could already be arranged as campaign strategy/Act II. The back room workings of campaign handlers may be on to something, and this could be a big part of it. Obama “the victim” of Wright. Wright, “the nefarious” gets wealthy.
Hummmm…
And Barbara makes the same observation in this thread:
Has it occurred to anyone that these two (Obama and Wright) might have thought up this ploy as a justification for disowning Wright? Right now Obama is between a rock and a hard place but if Wright acts so outrageously Obma will have good reason to disown him. Never underestimate the political machinations of a democrat. Only at your peril. Wright is entirely too pleased with himself for me to not think this is a political gambit.
Excellent points….this whole thing does seem a bit too smooth and silky.
UPDATE II
Jim Geraghty on the Obama speech on race a few weeks back which now look utterly ridiculous with the events of the past few days:
The “not once have I heard him” line sounds particularly implausible today.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.
Obama has now disproven this. Also note how this statement echoes Wright’s insistence that he is not being criticized, but that the entire black church is under attack.
I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
This looked ridiculous at the time, but I wonder how Obama feels about this maddening comparison now.
~~~In light of events in the past 72 hours, a lot of this looks ridiculous now.
Can we dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue? Yes we can, no irony intended. Those of us who were shocked and appalled by those first clips of Wright’s sermons were right, and Barack Obama, and all of those who accused us of judging Wright unfairly, were wrong.
See author page
Heis digging himself a deeper hole I think. Does he believe people will beleive hi thathe didn’t know Wright tought this stuff, after 20 years. This is worse than not getting rid of him when the first tapes came out. Obama is a phoney and just proved to the world he is justa nother Politician that will say anything to get elected. He didn’t throw him under the bus until after these ridiculous interviews, what a Moroon.
Lets now turn to our Hymnals and sing…”Sha Na Na Na, Sha Na Na Na, Oh Bah Ma, Good Bye!”
Has it occurred to anyone that these two (Obama and Wright) might have thought up this ploy as a justification for disowning Wright? Right now Obama is between a rock and a hard place but if Wright acts so outrageously Obma will have good reason to disown him. Never underestimate the political machinations of a democrat. Only at your peril. Wright is entirely too pleased with himself for me to not think this is a political gambit.
That is *exactly* the scenario I said on the Clarification thread, BarbaraS. It is a cooperative effort to remove the albatross around BHO’s neck before the remaining primaries, and during the general.
Obama is doing the right thing. We all need to remember Wright is not running for office with Obama, Nor is he working on Obama’s campaign. The right wingers like Hannity act like Wright is running as VP… Relax Hannity!!! Of course Hannity and Faux news will continue their smear campaign as long as they think they can derail Obama.
Don’t you think it is funny how after 20 years he finally threw him under the bus????? 20 yearsand he finally found out what Wright is, and you want someone like that to be the President???? I find it hard to believe that he just had an epiphany and finally figured out that Wright is not good for his campaign.
This is not about Wright in itself, it is about Obama’s associations. Wright, Rezko, Ayers and him being from Chicago have a big impact on wh Obama is. He is one of Alinski’s followers, and he tried to use Aliski’s Jujitsu, but his associations are going to burn him. And Obama himself said that Wright was his mentor and spiritual leader. So this is about Obama not Wright
One thing that can’t be denied, Stix. It certainly gives him a substantial demerit on his touted good “judgment” talking point. Those that believe association doesn’t matter, still can’t work their way out of that one….
Unless, of course, they prefer to be impressed with Obama, the “victim” of a hearbreaking betrayal by a long time friend and mentor, who will courageously rise like a phoenix from the ashes. (by george, I think I’m making my own self ill here…. LOL)
I think it’s pretty evident that the cult base is giving the man a pass, and ignoring the bad judgment bit.
Oh Skye, why be an apologist for a man who couldn’t figure out in 20yrs of watching Wright what everyone else saw immediately: the guy’s a loon. Barack was either a moron for 20yrs, or he’s lying that he suddenly had an epiphany over the past few weeks. It’s not about Hannity (to use your own words, he’s not on a campaign, running for President, VP, etc). Lose the Blue/Red BS. Barack is an extremely well-spoken plaigarist who’s pandered his way to the presidential nomination process. Hillary is an evil ice queen who-according to Democrats in one of the big debates-changes position as many as 5 times in 2 minutes. Sen McCain isn’t perfect, but he’s the lesser of the three evils, and even though he’s got that oh-so-horrific R next to his name, he’s the only one who has a history of working with both parties as opposed to pure partisan voting. The only thing Barack apologists care about in the wake of this and all the other fubars he’s made is a D. Put a D next to the man’s name, you’ll vote for him. Put an R there, you’ll check his newsphotos for a 666 birthmark on his scalp.
Isn’t it just a gift from the Gods that the Rev. Wright seemed to give Obama this great seconds chance to have that conversation on race.
What BS !!
Frankly, the whole thing felt fishy from the beginning. Making it worse was the effort to blame Clinton for setting up the Nation Press Club affair where Wright could oh so well re-self destruct. But, of course, it would be topped off by Obama’s attempt at a Sister Soulja Moment.
Only a political novice would ever believe that this was a coincidence. Even Karl Rove isn’t this obvious.
The whole thing is just too easy that it stinks to high heaven.
And, of course, it still doesn’t explain why Obama sat in Trinity UCC for 20 years ?
NEWSFLASH! Jimmah Carter on “Lob”Ball Matthews show calls Obama “courageous” for severing contact with Wright.
sigh… so predictable. The DNC loves a victim.
sky55110 said “We all need to remember Wright is not running for office. ”
We KNOW that 55110. We don’t need your parroted talking points to point out the obvious. But apparently YOU need to remember why this story is important.
Every one of the racist enabling talking points that you and others have been spreading since the Wright story went viral have been swept away and the ugly truth underneath has been exposed.
Wright’s performance at the National Press Club wasn’t some disconnected replay of soundbites from Wright’s sermons years ago. It was one long, hatefilled rant.
I have no doubt it angered and embarrased Obama. And no doubt, he know recalls having heard much the same while sitting in the church listening to one of Rev. Wright’s sermons.
And notice how Obama seemed to be more angry and upset because he felt he was personally disrespected. You just don’t diss a guy from the rough side of Chicago and get away with it.
I read somewhere earlier today that Obama has now tossed so many people under the bus, that he’s going to have to get a bigger bus.
NEWSFLASH II: Margaret Carlson on “Lob”ball Matthews says Wright was “disasterous up to now” and that he seems “human” in his rejection. Glowing accounts of his response and bravery.
Second commentator (didn’t see who it was…) says now Obama has removed Wright as a legimate issue with the superdelegates with his rejection of Wright.
da spin moves on… in BHO’s favor. This is all about him retaining his cult base, and not losing them to Hillary. It does not, of course, affect any of us who already see thru him.
The big problem with the whole Wright debacle is that Obama’s been going to that church for 20 years and took his kids to bask in what Wright’s sermons. That either shows colossally bad judgment, assuming he disagrees with Wright’s views, or that he actually agrees with them and is only now attempting to divorce himself to save the campaign.
QUESTION:Can we expect that it would take Barack 20yrs to figure out that Ahmadinejad is a racist, conspiracy theorist nutjob too? How long to figure it out for Kim Il Jong, Assad, Chavez, Nasrallah, and so on?
For 20yrs Sen Obama sat in a church and listened to Wright, and now he’s surprised to learn what most people learn about him in minutes? Uh, yeah…right-err, I mean Wright.
Your righties keep harping that Obama used bad judgement staying at that church… That may be.. but is small in comparison to his judgement on Iraq.. He made the right choice there and will make the right choice in other foreign relations… I still have confidence Obama is the right choice of the 3.
Wright isn’t running…. get over it!!!
Let’s talk about real issues….
you’ve had a oil man as president for 7 1/2 years… we’ve given millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil companies… yet we are looking at $4.00 a gallon… up from $1.59…
we’ve been bushed!!!
Now one of you will make some statement about drilling in Anwar… that oil would go on the world market… not our market and it might save us .02 per gallon… it’s not the answer.
Sky, thanks to your non-biased and fact-based allegations about President Bush, I have decided not to vote for him this fall. As to Iraq…Obama didn’t have to make a reality decision-just a political one since he wasn’t in office. He never saw the US or UN intel, and post-war investigations have shown that while the intel wasn’t 100% right (that’s why it’s called intelligence not evidence….’cause it never is), Saddam did in fact turn out to be a wmd threat, did back radical islamic jihadis (including Al Queda groups), and most of all: there were no other ways to remove Saddam by March 2003 (including inspections). If anyone believes that Sen Obama made a choice to oppose the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence or any sort of research, then you’re naive. Leaving Saddam Hussein alive and in power was not a solution. It was a stop-gap measure.
Oh, and btw…when it comes to gas prices etc., didn’t Democrats promise to solve that problem if elected to power in 2006?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-gas-price-plan-2008-04-22.html
Maybe-JUST MAYBE-gas and oil prices would be a little teeny weeny bit lower if Democrats would let companies…oh, I don’t know…drill for oil to get more oil?
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SBfcl4WcIwI/AAAAAAAANP8/dv52zKZ5p3Y/s1600-h/no+zone.jpg
Leaving saddam in power is exactly what we should have done… He was NO threat to the US as some state he was… He did NOT have a relationship with Al Queda. ( proven by our own FBI )
Oh and BTW when it comes to gas prices… or most anything not being able to overturn a veto has tied the hands of the democrats and YOU know it… the democrats have the desire but cannot get anything that bush doesn’t like to stand up.. the democrats don’t have the numbers to stop a filibuster… However, this year should change that.
maybe drilling in anwar would lower the price of gas??? you are dreaming. it would take 7-8 years before the first barrel is pumped out… and that oil would go on the world market…
saving us what?? would it even be noticeable?? probably not.
We need short term and Long term solutions.. not solutions that just give the oil companies permission to continue to rape this country.
Short term… the answer is NOT drop the federal gas tax as McCain and Clinton suggest.
that would stop highway improvement projects and put thousands out of work… NOT the right answer.
Try not putting 70,000 barrels a day into our federal reserve. it’s 97% full why continue that at this time?? Set the speed limits lower. remember 55 mph?? or maybe 60?? it’s called conserve…
I am already driving much slower… I drive 2800 miles a month. still i have more time than money..
Or maybe we can makes some more refineries so we have more gas. It is a little thing called “Supply and Demand” Economics 101.
And I just love it “Bush is an oil man”. Wow, ask his Oil Company that went under.
And Please tell me how Obama got National Security Clearance while he was talking to his friends from the Weather Undergound.
And Again I am not going to vote for Bush either this year.
Obama is a “babe in the woods” and will get taken apart easily by McCain. Just llok athow he handled Wright, he needed more grooming and more experience, but for some verystupid reasons,he was foisted into a Presidential Camapaignwith no experience and will get cre4amedand ruin his political career. All so Dicjk Durbin cna gethis guy into office. Because Dick Turbin Durbin knows thathe could never ever get elected President. The Democrats are going down on the Titanic fast, what a shame that a national party put this guy up for election. I am sure JFK, FDR, Scoop Jackson and many other Democrats of old are rolling in their graves
Stix…. the democrats are not going down…
gampy McCain is going down… it’s going to be fun to watch…
“going to be…” Sky, Republicans are running out of popcorn already!
Haveyou been to the Daily Kos or Demcratic Undergound lately.It is a full out war between the Hillary factions and Obama factions. 20% of Obama supporters will never vote for Hillary, 28% of Hillary supporters will never vote for Obama. That does not bode well for either Obama or Hillary. The Identity Politics that the Defeatocrats use will be their downfall.
RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.
Uddercha0s nails it. Translation: Senator Obama says what he says because that’s what a politician needs to say at the time; ie he panders, and nothing more.
“OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.”
When the D’s vote for the war, Barack is for the war. When D’s are against the war, he’s against the war. Intelligence reports, facts, etc. are irrelevant
For those that are “wright-brained”
That’s a great find Udder:
And I always liked that song!
P.S. That You Tuber has some other great Obama vids:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VOTEFORHILLARY1
“And I always liked that song!”
I know what you mean. I’m a fan of Pink Floyd as well and I got a chuckle out of the whole Obama Drop/Flying Pig Fiasco. (You can’t make this stuff up)
http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080429/NEWS01/804290320
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_webpig3.2455f24.html
(Story originally found at Michelle Malkin’s site)
I don’t know what’s worse: that giant Obama pig on the loose or those campaign fliers littering the environment.
This was a great comment:
While Obama’s campaign has said it wasn’t involved in the incident, Indio resident Carol Davison, who lives two blocks from the polo fields, said the display definitely changes her thoughts on the candidate, calling the incident a “derelict action.”
“I am just appalled. All of our gardeners will now have to spend the whole day trying to clean this up. It’s going to be in our pool filters clogging them up,” Davison said.
His elitist friends may be getting ready to throw him under the bus.. haha
Nice going Chaos!
BHO is showing himself more and more the “typical politician” by developing a highly convenient sense of memory; a willingness to say things not because he believes them, but because they are politically expedient (back your side when the war was popular, then say you were against it once it’s unpopular); and most recently the “highly fortuitous” timing of this public distancing from Jeremiah Wright (both of them had acknowledged this might have to happen, which makes it seem less than genuine).
I can’t say that I’m comfortable having a President whose judgment takes 20 years to kick in. What’s really shocking to me though is that the MSM is just going along with this story like it’s the gospel truth. Then again, people have long shown that they are more easily fooled than willing to admit when they have been fooled; so the BHO followers continue to chant “hope” and “change” without missing a beat.
Say, does anybody know how many times BHO has used the word “distraction” in his speeches or campaign releases this month?
“Set the speed limits lower. remember 55 mph?? or maybe 60?? it’s called conserve…
I am already driving much slower… I drive 2800 miles a month. still i have more time than money..”
Yeah, we tried that once during the oil crisis of the 70’s and saved at best 1% of the gas which was found that if most people just had the tire pressure correctly they would achive the same results. It was also estimated that the actual cost of the extra time (think trucks moving cargo) was ten times what was saved. BZZZT… Try again.. I was really HOPING for some CHANGE. What did I get? Same old bullsh*t.
Actually, YOU are part of the problem now by slowing down. Here’s an example: Since some candidates have decided to make things up I am going to do the same. Let’s say you’re driving down the highway insearch of the amber waves of grain in your VW Microbus (with peace signs and bumper stickers and such). You have a bottle of Naive er, Evian water and styrofoam cup of latte in your cupholders. Your back seat is filled with empty takeout containers from your arugula and ham lunches. Now, the posted speed limit is 65, but you, using your well thought out plans, decide to conserve energy and drive 55. Now, let’s get really crazy and imagine a pickup truck filled with drunk illegal aliens driving down the highway behind you. Now, being the law abiding non-citizens that they are, they are driving the speed limit (a bit wobbly). They come upon your conserving self and either a.) have to slow down and then pass (thus having to accelerate again using MORE gas) or b.) they wreck into you and we end up having to replace various organs inside of each of your pathetic bodies (at taxpayers expense), not to mention all the litter you have now dumped into the environment.
Thanks for playing.
Having lived in Raleigh, NC for 5 years I learned a little about the people there and their views. The area is important I feel because of the large number of Universities (UNC-CH, Duke, NC State, Wake Forrest). There is also a high population of people with advanced degrees as a result of many of the high tech industries in Research Triangle Park (IBM, Cisco, Nortel) Energy companies (Progress Energy, Duke Power) and Medical related to Duke University and UNC-CH. There is also a very high percentage of these people who were born and raised there on the farm. They have their bibles and guns and say grace and ma’am and don’t give a damn (my kinda people). The two popular news outlets are showing Obama dropping and I don’t think Tuesday can come fast enough for him. Here’s for HOPE that the polls continue to CHANGE.
New & Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1056627.html
WRAL
http://wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2818209/
Uddercha0s
I find your comments about saving gas by slowing down a bit out of reality… funny but not even close to real…
slowing down in my car alone has saved me 15%… now if everyone slowed down imagine 12 to 15% more gas on the market… will it lower the price of gas… you know it will… so far all I’ve done is slow down to about 60… the idea of it saving only 1%… I gotta ask have you been drinking???
That’s odd Sky. My SUV gets its best mileage at 70-75mph, not 55-60 mph. As does my wife’s Civic.
So I have to ask what you have been drinking??
Wow.. just.. wow.. well, you know Sky55110… where do I start? We’ll start with the drinking. Haven’t had a drop. Shame too because I could do my part in helping with the ethanol creation if I were. There’s some sane ethanol production that is being done by Coors with waste beer. I’ll leave you to do the research on that too. The one thing I do know, I sure as hell don’t want any of that kool-aid you’ve been drinking. I suspect that you’re a product of our public school system and didn’t learn about decimals. You may, just may, be getting 1.5% (that would be 0.015 on your calculator).
Now granted, you caught me. I made a little assumption with my 1% figure above. I felt it was a pretty safe bet though all things considered. The study that I quoted the 1% figure goes back to 1986 and they even quoted as little savings as 1/2 of 1% (that would be 0.005 on your calculator). I’m making a little leap of faith in thinking that the fuel efficiency in vehicles has improved in the last 20 years. The reason this study came about was because they were trying to get rid of the insane law that was enacted in the first place as a knee jerk reaction. It’s actually quite interesting because it really became a way of the federal government pushing it’s will on the states by witholding tax money for highways, much like they did with the drinking age. It went from, it saves fuel, to it saves lives. They also were able to implement another little tax on us.. more speeding tickets. It did spawn a whole new industry in radar detectors though. As a little side note, a barrel of oil back then was $13 and minimum wage was $3.65 an hour.
We see fuel savings when we do not accelerate (faster – long skinny pedal on right) and decelerate (slower – pedal on left). Now, if you want to make an impact on fuel consumption, it would be more productive to make sure that traffic studies have been done in your village to see if the traffic is flowing efficiently.
I suspect the whole bottled water and styrofoam flew right over your head. Hint: It has to do with oil. As an added bonus, if you use tap water in a refillable container, many cities will provide you with pharmaceuticals in the process. Consider that preventative health care and much safer than that kool-aid you’re guzzling.
as I suspected… No data to back up anything you say Uddercha0s….
I saw fuel savings personally of 15% by slowing down from 75 to 65… and even more when I drive 60… so if you are telling me we would only save 1%…. you are the one on koolaid…
Sky55110, no one-NO ONE is against ways to save gas/money, but it’s not the biggest way to lower prices. Allowing oil companies to get more oil is (and again, I’m not just talking Anwar). Second to that is allowing gasoline producers to build more gasoline production facilities (which tree-hugging elements of the Democratic Party have successfully prevented for almost 30yrs now). We all want to save money, and to have a cleaner environment, but your partisanship blinds you to fiscal realities: blocking production of oil and gasoline raises prices. Of course these aren’t limitless supplies, and we should all be grateful that Pres Bush has spent more money than any other President on alternative energy source research. We can advocate more money for that too if (for example) the Democrats’ Congress fulfilled ONE of their key 2006 campaign pledges and cut pork spending; spending which could be used to increase further R&D.
Let’s see, Dems took Congress in 2006 based on:
promising to make pork spending accountable-DIDN’T HAPPEN
promising to spend less on pork than Republicans-DIDN’T HAPPEN
end the war in Iraq with their New Direction in Iraq plan-DIDN’T HAPPEN/no plan ever existed
get Osama Bin Laden-DIDN’T HAPPEN
…and my favorite…lower cost of gasoline-DIDN’T HAPPEN.
Yet, blind partisans who prefer to believe that any and all things R are evil, and inherently wrong…they’ll still vote D despite the history of broken promises, blanket pandering, and opposition sans solution
Scott you are really drinking the Republican koolaid!!! OMG to blame the 2006 congress for not getting Osama??? let’s see do they control the military?? are they commander and chief?? answer NO NO NO.. guess not…
end the war they will when we have a 60 vote majority in the senate and BHO takes office.. about 18 months later…
Pork barrel spending dropped in 2007… hummmm how did that happen?
Copied from citizens against public waste:
According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999
keep drinking the right wing koolaid scott… you will feel better for sure
Why did the dems promise something they couldn’t deliver on? Not just a pledge or two, they batted zero on everything. So many investigations, so little time.
What happened to pork spending in 2007? President Bush finally found his pen:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS237US237&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=president+bush+vetoes+pork+bill&spell=1
Excuuuuuuuuse me Missy!! they did not bat zero on everything!!! They did manage to raise the Minimum wage… ( a positive thing )
you are really dreaming if you believe it was Bushes pen that stopped pork spending…
throughout the Republican controlled congress years from 1999 thru 2005 we had the highest pork spending ever!!!!! The PORK spent by republicans far out weighed democrats…
keep drinking the right wing koolaid Missy
Sky, They promised. They failed. Now, you can buy the idea that the only way to get things done is to have enough seats to have unchecked power, and you can think that such an idea is a good thing, but I personally believe there shouldn’t be unchecked power, and that politicians should work together. Democrats have not. They could have traded elements of their party line in exchange for ending the war, but they didn’t. They promised to get UBL, and they didn’t. They promised to make pork spending public and not hidden (something well within their power even without unchecked power/60+seats, and they didn’t.
Nah, no Koolaid here. I voted for Clinton twice, almost always voted for Dems to Congress, and voted for Obama in Ohio’s primary. I’m a registered Democrat who’s not gullible enough to blame everything on Republicans, but instead I choose to hold my party accountable. They make promises, they don’t keep em, I point it out. You, you buy their excuses, turn a blind eye, and instead finger point. That accomplishes nothing and only weakens the substance of the party.
Skye, first, I’ve quit bothering to post “sources” for you because you are quite the bore. You come in and spout things of that in no way can you back up. See previous thread where you stated McCain voted against funding the war that you swiped from Ed Schultz site. There was plenty of pork discussed in that as well. When we post the information refuting your claims, you scurry off to wherever it is you go until you find something else to blather on about.
“The notion that the 55 mile per hour speed limit helps conserve fuel has worked its way into the conventional wisdom so thoroughly that few drivers even question it benefits of the limit are minimal. As early as 1978, Dr. John Eberhart of the Department of Transportation’s Office of Driver Research found that the limit at best reduces fuel consumption one percent findings did not stop the Department of Transportation from continuing to claim that the NMSL could save up to 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Independent studies, meanwhile, indicate that the actual savings, if any, would be even lower than Eberhart estimated. ‘These studies project fuel savings of one-half of one percent Yet the evidence shows that the This would equal 73,000 barrels of oil daily. Currently about 7.3 million barrels of oil are used for transportation each day. One percent’of this, as noted, is 73,000 barrels per day, or 26,645,000 barrels per year. When measured against annual domestic oil consumption of around 5.9 billion barrels the fuel saved is barely worth noting.
But even this saving may be phony when measured against the cost it imposes. At current oil prices (around $13 per barrel), the value of the fuel allegedly saved by the NMSL would be just under $350 million. By contrast, according to a just-released study of the National Research Council, a panel operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the NMSL costs the npation about one billion man-hours per year in added driving time minimum wage of $3.65 per hour, this amounts to $3.65 billion–more than ten times’ the value of the fuel saved at current prices, and more than three times the value of the savings when the price of oil peaked”
You can find more information at The Heritage Foundation or The National Motorists Association. Note: “As early as 1978”. That would be when the President who helped get us into all of this mess was in office. The man that sits down to talks with terrorists but is attacked by killer rabbits.
Run along and play now and let the grown ups talk.
What is it with Sky55110 and the Kool Aid?
We all now who is sipping the pink stuff around here and it’s 55110!
Interesting that he/she/it has stopped defending Obama and is now offering gas mileage tips instead!
DRILL IN ANWR:
We have a 20 year supply of oil right here in the U.S. You can drive as fast as you want.
I hear you Mike. Carter had the giant land grab in Alaska under the guise of saving the environment. Now it’s save the polar bear (who appears to being doing quite well without our “help”). Wind farms have been suggested but Teddy the swimmer and the hollyweirdos don’t want them in their front yard. We haven’t built refineries in decades. No more drilling in the gulf even though there was no environmental impact even when Katrina hit. Coal? Yeah, good luck with that. No, now we’re using 20% of our yellow corn in our gas tanks and giving subsidies to farmers to grow it. This after we paid them not to grow crops. AAARRGH!
well all now who…. wow.. great spelling Mike… Do you have anymore intelligence not to show us?
BTW I still defend BHO… and I will be voting for him.
Haha.. so now you have dropped down to pointing out spelling errors. You’re a piece of work. How long until you start making Nazi references? I will at least take comfort when I pull the lever that I am canceling out your vote.
You go ahead. Vote for Grampy McCain! he will loose… no doubt.
I can’t believe you guys came up with him… OMG!
“I can’t believe you guys came up with him”
Skye, please, tell me exactly what Obama has done that makes him qualified to be President of the United States of America? I don’t want to hear ideas and hope and change. Those are emotions. We all hope for things to get better and we want things to change. Please tell me what he has done. Show me where he has “reached across the aisle” in his voting record (what little of a record there is). And, like you’ve asked from me countless times, I want to see sources. I don’t want the cut and paste he sponsored 500 pieces of legislation crap. I want to know, what has he done. He has voted almost entirely down party lines. Show me in his personal life how he has “reached across the aisle”. Show me how he has “united”. If this man (and I use that term loosely) was to apply for the job of CEO in even the smallest of companies, with his resume he would be laughed out of the door. We won’t even begin to discuss all of the questionable associations that he has had and has yet to explain. Please, do not give me the guilt by association line. That arguement doesn’t cut it. He’s had relationships with questionable characters not just casual associations. So I ask you, why should I vote for him?
As a side note skye, OMG, I went to see Obama speak in Florence, SC back in January I believe it was. I left from there and my exact words were, he’s a good speaker but an empty suit. It was after that I began looking into him more and I really didn’t like what I saw. I also had the chance to see McCain a year ago when he stopped at a little diner literally a stones throw away.
“he will loose… no doubt”
Since you were so picky with Mike earlier.. that would be lose.
I find it entertaining that Sky has lately gone on a rant about “grampy” McCain, as if it is some sort of serious liability for him. Even in the stale world of the MSM, the issue of McCain’s age has already been pretty well played out. McCain has hinted strongly that he would not seek re-election in 2012, a nod to the fact that he’s almost 72 (and thus would be serving as President till he’s 76). He appears to be in very good physical shape, though I imagine after the abuse and broken bones he received at the Hanoi Hilton, he must have some pretty wicked Arthritis (probably one reason why he lives in Arizona). Also, I should note there is precedent for a President of his age; Ronald Reagan took office at the age of 69 (shortly before his 70th birthday), and served until he was 77. That would fully encapsulate a first term for McCain.
Granted, you may not think too highly of Reagan as a President. But, the vast majority of American people (and you should remember that there’s a term “Reagan Democrats” for a reason) believe him to be one of the finest we’ve had. If McCain can have anywhere near the success that Reagan had, I’ll count him a fine occupant of the Oval Office. I suspect most of the readers and contributors on this site would agree with that as well.
Also, another thing I should point out here that I’m sure you’ll appreciate Sky: McCain was the one who came up with the bill that started recording “pork barrel” earmarks put on by members of Congress. McCain himself has ZERO, whereas both BHO and Hillary have a tidy little pile of pork cutlets for their respective constituencies. So, if cutting out pork in Washington really matters to you, then I suggest you vote for McCain. If not, then it would seem all your protests about Republican pork were simply hypocrisy, and a poor debating tactic.
P.S.: Udderchaos, if you like Sky’s spelling / grammar here, check out her latest post over on the “Mission Accomplished” thread (that is if it hasn’t been edited by now).
55110 said “well all now who…. wow.. great spelling Mike… Do you have anymore intelligence not to show us?”
That’s the last refuge of a fool 55110!
I’ll be happy to stack up my education AND experience up against yours anyday.
Go have another sip of the pink stuff.
I note again that you are no longer defending Saint Obama!
I feel your pain.
Senator Robert (KKK) Byrd (D-West Virginia) is 90. Let me repeat that again… 90. Why is he still in office and the democrat rally around him?
“Senior Democratic senators privately considered Tuesday Sen. Robert Byrd’s capacity to handle his spot at the top of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, but the 90-year-old lawmaker won’t be stepping down from the demanding job, his office told CNN.”
He’s 20 years older than McCain. Maybe something to do with that “powerful Senate Appropriations Committee”?
Senator John Murtha – (D PA) is 75? 4 years older than McCain. I loved the hypocrisy of him calling McCain too old several weeks ago.
“I’ve served with seven presidents,” Murtha told a union audience. “When they come in, they all make mistakes. They all get older.”
“This one guy running is about as old as me,” he said, drawing laughter and applause. “Let me tell you something, it’s no old man’s job.”
Oh, I guess it’s all right for Senate positions. They don’t do a damn thing anyhow. sheesh. Let’s not forget to look at Senator Edward (Teddy the Lifeguard) Kennedy – (D- MA)… 76. Yeah, maybe he should think of retiring already!