The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Anonymous

My dd and her dh just came back from Africa.  They visited Egypt before going to the UK.  They tell me how other countries hate us.  How wonderful the transit system is in Europe.  Dear sil tells me I should be happy to live in this country.  HIM TELLING ME I SHOULD BE HAPPY!  I told him I WAS VERY HAPPY TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY!  Then, he goes on to tell me how in the UK you are charged $60 a day (I think that's what he said..I'll clarify that later) to drive a car.  This is to discourage driving and using the transit system.  I told him he should check out the Netherlands!

I'll tell you something, girls, I don't want to HAVE to use a transit system if at all possible.  Now, I realize in New York and D.C. area is an almost must..no parking..loads of traffic.  But you know what I'm scared of!?  Terrorists attacking these trains.

Also, my dd told me she was not voting for McCain...she thinks he'll be another Bush.  I told her not true.  I told her to do her homework.  She hasn't been here to know what's going on politically and how Obama is so..........flip floppy. 

Rocktobermom, I'm going to find your gaffes and print it for my dd and sil to read.  She doesn't think Obama should be "tied" to his minister's ideas.  Well, if I attended a church who bashed black people I wonder how she'd like that!  I know there's a lot of hystery with African Americans, but I hope we are forgiven for the mistakes of our "ancestors."

Shirley

saluki

You heard it here first from Wizbangblog

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin To Meet With McCain VP Search Team

Posted by Kevin
Published: May 29, 2008 - 1:32 AM

A tipster sent us word that John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. There's only one reason he would be there - to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position.

This comes on the heels of McCain's Memorial Day weekend barbecue attended by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former White House budget director Rob Portman, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. Supposedly that was in informal affair, not a vetting session, but it appears that the VP selection game is very much afoot.

Governor Palin would (in my estimation) make an excellent VP candidate for McCain. Thomas Cheplick at The American Spectator makes the case that she's probably the only VP candidate who can balance the ticket against Obama. She's also a potential magnet for disaffected Hillary Clinton voters, many of whom are just looking for a reason not to vote for Obama.

Anonymous

I heard her talk on Fox over the phone.  Darn, I can't remember what show or what they were talking about.  I will remember later after some thought. LOL  However, the little I heard her speak I LIKE HER!  You probably think I'm nuts since I can't remember.  She DID impress me, it's just that my memory is shot!

Anonymous

Oh, and she's pretty too! LOL

saluki

I wouldn't expect McCain to announce any VP before the Democratic Convention is over and Obama has disclosed his.  It is McCain's trump card.

Shirley--Could the subject have been Polar Bears--After all she is sueing to block the Federal Gov't from listing Polar Bears as an endangered species.

Or maybe this on Anwar:

On ANWR drilling, which President Bush failed to get through the Senate when it was in Republican hands, the governor is still hopeful. "We want it to happen," she said, "it's really a pathetic situation. "Alaskans want to open up the lands for that development, for the contributions that are potential here for the rest of the U.S." Palin said:" I have to ask lawmakers in Washington, D.C., who have prohibited this drilling in ANWR if they're doing all they can to secure the United States. When you consider, too, the geology that we're talking about here, and the physical space that's even needed to drill now, about a 2,000-acre plot, because of directional drilling and new technology, allowing such a small footprint to even be placed upon the tundra up north, it's about 2,000 acres, which is smaller than the size of LAX and other bigcity airports, that we would need to drill, and allow these resources to finally be tapped and to flow -into hungry markets, and make us more secure. I think it's so short-sighted."

Palin also made it clear she didn't believe that her differences over drilling for oil in ANWR with her party's certain presidential nominee were insurmountable. As she said, "I think he needs a running mate who sees the light regarding resource development, and how domestic resource development can help secure the United States.
 

saluki

And Shirley---I think all conservatives would find her acceptable.

Strongly Pro-life
Lifetime member of the NRA
Opposed to gay “marriage”
Despises government corruption
Favors energy independence, drilling in ANWR
Mother of five children

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the 2012 race pitted Sarah Palin against Hillary Clinton-----Stay tuned!

Anonymous

Yeah, Susie, I think the Polar Bear thing was what she was talking about.  I've read enough about how the Alaskans want to drill there.  Maybe she could convince McCain!    Of course the libs have to agree if they are in the majority. 

Okay, dd just walked in and have to go.  She wants the puter.  Should I let her have it?

Rosemary44

Are we sure she isn't any thing like Pelosi?  I can't do another one like her.  I'm ruined, any time I see a woman being tauted, they have to pass the Pelosi test.  I had such high hopes for Pelosi but they weren't realized.  She has fallen into the pit of demigoddess, egotistical, ah nevermind.  It gives me heartburn. 

Where's Alaska Deb, we need to talk.

saluki

5 kids I think --Youngest with downs syndrome---Worked right through her pregnancy---Very strong family unit----No matter the looks (was Miss Alaska back in the day) ---she seems like no prima dona---8 years experience. -------Whether she'd want to disrupt and uproot her family is another question. Very engaging to talk to.  Would add pizazz to the ticket--thats for sure --and would contrast well to Sebellius assuming that is Obama's pick.

Anonymous

I can't remember where I posted this article by Michele Malkin ... here are the gaffes:

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

Anonymous

Oh, Susie, she's pretty, I'll vote for her!  LOL!  It's funny how people do vote for a candidate based on looks.  They say that's a big reason JFK won out over Nixon ... theirs was the first televised campaign ... so many people had tvs that they could be in the homes alot ... people fell in love with the Kennedy charm and charisma.

Anonymous

I never heard of Wizbang ... here's an article:

Barack Obama's favorability ratings among white women has declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party's base.

According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.

Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.

Over the same period, Democratic white women's negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent -- roughly the same rate as white women overall.

Maybe it's his association with terrorists and race baiters that are chasing women away. Or maybe it's his loud-mouthed, negative, America-hating wife. Maybe it's his hideous stance on foreign policy and national security. Maybe it's his many, many, many gaffes and misstatements. Maybe it's the fact that he's just an empty suit with no experience and nothing to say except to feebly bleat "HOPE!" and "CHANGE!". Honestly, it could be any of these reasons. They're certainly enough to make me want to run away screaming.

saluki

Rockermom-As a follow-up on your Michele Malkin Gaffe machine which you incidentally posted on the other "Respectable" thread;  Here is a follow up by Jake Tapper one of the few unbiased journalists left at ABC--

This astounding garbleygoop from Political punch.

-------------------------------------

What the FARC Was Obama Talking About?

May 25, 2008 11:08 AM

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said, "And I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that."

One reason why Obama may be so forgiving (even if his campaign was not) about Sen. Hillary Clinton's assassination reference?

The man has been a one-man gaffe machine.

On Friday afternoon in Sunrise, Florida, Obama said, "how's it going, Sunshine?" (Watch HERE.)

Wrote the local Sun-Sentinel: "It wasn’t clear if Barack Obama knew exactly where he was Friday afternoon when he spoke at his mass rally at the BankAtlantic Center."

He did the same thing in Sioux Falls, SD, calling it "Sioux City." (Watch HERE.)

"Obama starts speech with a gaffe," wrote the Argus Leader.

But those are the relatively silly ones. There have also been gaffes of more consequence.

As ABC News' David Wright and Sunlen Miller wrote, Obama seemed to either think Arabic is spoken in Afghanistan or he misunderstands the nature of military translators.

More recently, Obama as he traveled through Florida seemed to give some contradictory statements about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the Colombian terrorist group FARC.

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and "one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about."

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," he said in a speech in Miami.  "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

On Friday in an interview with the Miami Herald, Obama also used language suggesting that he's not as positive that Venezuela is supporting FARC.

"When I asked him what he would do about the estimated 37,000 Interpol-certified Colombian FARC guerrilla computer files that indicate an active support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to the Colombian rebels, Obama went farther than the Bush administration," wrote the Herald's Andres Oppenheimer.

Said Obama: "I think the Organization of American States and the international community should launch an immediate investigation into this situation. We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

"If" Venezuela "is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders"? Just one day before Obama had asserted that Chavez was supporting FARC in Colombia.

I've asked the Obama campaign for a clarification and will get back to you as to what they say.

- jpt

UPDATE: The Obama campaign says there's nothing unusual about proposing the isolation of a country at the same time a President talks about meeting with its country's leader. (The Obama campaign cites how the U.S. is talking to North Korea via the Six-Party talks as an example. Though it might be observed, those diplomatic efforts are quite different than a presidential-level meeting.) 

As for the statement, and then the very qualified "if" statement about Chavez and FARC, the Obama campaign says Obama is laying out his principles. The U.S. government says all the time, "If Iran continues its nuclear program," the Obama campaign says. I don't know. Saying, "if in fact" Venezuela is aiding FARC seemed to me at least to be different than saying "if Chavez continues aiding FARC." What do you think?

UPDATE 2: So, I just spoke to an Obama campaign foreign policy adviser and this is how he explains any confusion.

Obama, he says, believes that Chavez is supportive of the FARC, both ideologically and tangibly. The Obama campaign disagrees that Obama's language -- "if, in fact, it (Chavez) is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders" -- is hedging language at all. Obama has been very clear that he believes that Chavez is supportive of the FARC, the adviser says.

As to the question of whether one can pledge to isolate a country while also proposing a presidential-level meeting, the adviser says that I was inaccurate in characterizing Obama as proposing such a meeting -- the reality was that Obama was merely acknowledging a willingness to meet.

But "if we are going to isolate the Venezuelans, it may be that we have to engage in a full-on diplomatic strategy with them," the adviser says. Obama was not saying he, himself, would propose such a meeting, nor that he would necessarily participate in that meeting. When Obama referred to "my talks with President Hugo Chavez," he did not mean "my talks," literally (necessarily) -- he meant his administration's talks -- "though it could be him engaging in this diplomacy directly and personally," the adviser says. The point is, all the tools need to be in the diplomacy kit -- isolation, willingness to hold presidential meetings, and everything in between.

Got it?

Paulette531

I LOVE Obama's take on things...NOT! But the one about small countries not posing a threat is really choice, does this fool know anything at all about history?

With an area of 1,648,000 square kilometers, Iran ranks sixteenth in size among the countries of the world. Iran is about one-fifth the size of the continental United States, or slightly larger than the combined area of the contiguous states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Japan is an island nation in East Asia comprising a large stratovolcanic archipelago extending along the Pacific coast of Asia. Measured from the geographic coordinate system, Japan is 36° north of the equator and 138° east of the Prime Meridian. The country is north-northeast of China and Taiwan (separated by the East China Sea) and slightly east of Korea (separated by the Sea of Japan). The country is south of Siberia in Russia.

The main islands, sometimes called the "Home Islands", are (from north to south) Hokkaidō, Honshū (the "mainland"), Shikoku and Kyūshū. There are also about 3,000 smaller islands, including Okinawa, and islets, some inhabited and others uninhabited. In total, as of 2006, Japan's territory is 377,923.1 km², of which 374,834 km² is land and 3,091 km² water. This makes Japan's total area slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Montana. Japan is bigger than Germany, Malaysia, New Zealand and the U.K., and is 1.7 times the size of Korea and 10 times the size of Taiwan.

saluki

Paulette--His take on things gets better and better............Guess the Republicans can't get any ammunition on this stuff because it takes forever to get past the flowery speech to what he's truly saying---

Had to laugh at Shokk

"..........remember you can be democrat and not liberal........and you can be republican and not conservative "

I think you have to add a few categories---You can be a liberal and be a centrist---You can be a liberal and be an off the map leftist------That is what you have here.  Anyone want to give Hannity a heads up on ACORN.........

I know you'll be interested Linda..........

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/05/30/obamas-radical-political-alliances/

  Makes Hillary look like quite a centrist.---Certainly

Bill was.  McCain in truth probably is as well but look at the alternative..............

 

----------------------

From Jeff Emmanuel's site

A "central focus" of an Obama administration: Shipping farmers to Afghanistan?

Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 3:46pm.

Barack Obama has been having some foreign policy trouble lately. The term "lately," of course, only applies because Mr. Obama himself has only lately decided to start wading into the arena of foreign affairs with suggestions and actual policy proposals -- and, unfortunately him, the vast majority of those suggestions and proposals have served to demonstrate his inexperience, naivete, and ignorance with regard to the world around him and the people and cultures living in it.

On May 13, Obama juxtaposed Iraq and Afghanistan -- two entirely separate cultures, with languages and races that come from entirely different stocks and families -- in an attempt to claim that Iraq was distracting from success in Afghanistan due to its requirement for Arabic translators that would, for some reason known only to the erstwhile wannabe-President, be put to better use in Pashtun, Farsi, etc.-speaking Afghanistan.

In that same speech, Obama added that "we need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan," as well -- "people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan."

The Afghan farm piece of Obama's War on Terror stump speech is back, as can be seen in the video below from the same Las Cruces, New Mexico speech that featured the Democrat's attempt to place his Uncle at the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp (which, likely unbeknownst to Obama, put his relative in Stalin's Red Army for WWII).

So, according to Obama, "if you talk to commanders on the ground there [Auth. note: "There" being "Afghanistan"], they'll tell you, "I'd rather-- Instead of having another platoon, I'd rather have an, uh, couple of agricultural specialists."

Really? Really?

"We need more troops on the ground in Afghanistan," he continued, "but what we also need is to teach them to grow things other than Poppy."

"It's going to be one of the central challenges of my administration."

Unfortunately, Obama didn't include in his statement whether these would need to be Arabic-speaking agricultural specialists, or if those who spoke languages that Afghanis actually speak and understand would suffice.

“Obama didn't say whether these would need to be Arabic-speaking agricultural specialists,
or if those who spoke languages that Afghanis actually speak and understand would suffice.”

Obama, whom I don't believe has ever been to Afghanistan, who has missed two of the three Afghanistan-related meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since joining that panel, who previously called for more troops to be sent to the region "so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," and who has yet to call a single meeting of his own NATO-overseeing Senate Subcommittee on Europe, expects us to believe (a) that he has discussed with "commanders on the ground there" what their needs are, and their preferences to increased troop levels, and then, after we have suspended disbelief long enough to accept (a), (b) that those "commanders on the ground there" actually told Obama -- not their chains of command, but Obama -- that, "instead of having another platoon," they would "rather have...[a] couple of agricultural specialists."

Afghanistan is a sticky issue, given its prominent place in the War on Terror and in a very sensitive region -- and the magnitude of opium poppy cultivation does not help those matters. According to the UN, in 2007 Afghanistan produced 93% of the world’s opium poppy -- a record high for the second year in a row. Contrary to Obama's apparent assumption, though, such enormous production of the opium and heroin-producing plant does not sound like a problem of ignorance; rather, it sounds like a response to a market demand. In other words, Afghanis do not necessarily cultivate poppies because, as Obama so richly assumes, they are simply too ignorant to know how to grow anything else; rather, the ease of production and gross demand for their product dictates that it is the most lucrative crop for them to grow.

If this is the case, in order to peacefully wean a farmer in Afghanistan off of poppy production, a suitably lucrative replacement must be made available.

Such a strategy has, according to the U.N., been effective in the northern portion of the country. According to David Johnson, an Assistant Secretary with the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs:

UN surveys showed significant poppy reductions in the north of the country, including in the traditional poppy-growing provinces of Balkh and Badakhshan.

During 2007, the number of poppy-free provinces more than doubled from six in 2006 to 13 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces in 2007. These trends demonstrate that counternarcotics success can be achieved where there is security, political will, and the ability to provide alternative development opportunities.

With regard to the U.S.'s specific counternarcotic strategy in Afghanistan, Johnson said:

In particular, we aim to dramatically enhance incentives for participation in licit livelihoods through the provision of additional development assistance, while simultaneously strengthening the disincentives in participating in all facets and levels of the narcotics industry through increased interdiction, eradication, and law enforcement. The complexity of the drug problem in Afghanistan demands a balanced counternarcotics approach that melds deterrence, prevention, and economic development assistance.

That sounds to me a lot more like a strategy to curb poppy production by making other opportunities more lucrative than by condescendingly deigning to teach those ignorant Afghani rubes how to grow something other than opium -- but hey, that could just be me.

Thomas Pickering, State's former Under Secretary for Political Affairs, was more specific about the incentive/disincentive program, saying:

“Drug money” weakens key institutions and fuels and strengthens the Taliban, while at the same time corrupting the country‟s governmental leadership.

There are serious disputes about how best to deal with the drug economy. Some want large-scale aerial eradication with the potential for serious, disruptive impacts on rural Afghans and their livelihood. Others are counseling more gradual but more complete approaches seeking to find crop substitutes and other supports for the 90 percent of Afghans who have said they are willing to abandon poppy cultivation if they can count on earning half as much from legal activities.

The issue does not appear to be ignorance, as Obama is so quick to assume; rather, it appears, as mentioned above, to be the market. In fact, as Johnson points out, the poppy fields in the most problematic areas are not even primarily owned and cultivated by poor subsistence farmers who have limited knowledge and need a simple cash crop to survive; rather, these fields are primarily the property of wealthy drug lords and corrupt public officials. Said Johnson:

Some have suggested that increased eradication would have the effect of pushing “farmers with no other source of livelihood into the arms of the Taliban without reducing the total amount of opium being produced.”

The facts do notsupport this view. The poppy fields in the south – where poppy cultivation and the insurgency are most acute – are largely owned by wealthy drug lords and, in some instances, corrupt officials.

Recent aerial reconnaissance missions have observed organized and industrialized poppy farming in broad, open fields. Helmand Province is also a significant recipient of international assistance. In fact, if Helmand were a separate country, it would be the sixth largest recipient of bilateral USAID assistance in the world. Pursuing non-negotiated, force-protected eradication would primarily impact these well-financed narco-farmers and provide a blow to the insurgents that protect them in the process.

The following, again from Johnson, sounds like more of the same:

During FY 2007, nearly $229 million in funding was allocated for USAID-led alternative development initiatives, which included efforts to implement a rural finance program to provide credit to farmers and small- and medium-sized enterprises, to create overseas markets for Afghan agricultural exports, to provide technical and material assistance to farmers, to establish economically viable infrastructure to produce and move licit goods to market, and to administer cash-for-work programs.

Johnson and Pickering's statements, by the way, were part of their testimonies to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing entitled "Afghanistan: A Plan to Turn the Tide?" Barack Obama was clearly out sick (or campaigning) that day.

Given the testimony above, not once does it sound like the solution to Afghanistan's poppy problem, according to those who actually study the area, visit the country, and show up for meetings, is to send farmers there to "teach [the Afghanis] to grow things other than Poppy."

Of course, Obama would likely claim that to be the exact reason why the U.S. is not succeeding in curbing overall poppy cultivation.

Perhaps he should go visit the country, taking an Arabic translator with him, and ask the farmers himself.

It might be a good chance to actually talk to those commanders on the ground he has been avoiding for so long, as well.

Paulette531

Maybe Obama could jet on over and teach them to grow corn then we could be accused of being in Afghanistan for trying to corner the market on alternative fuels as well as being in Iraq for oil...Ya that sounds like a good idea! Think about it!

Anonymous

Again, there he goes with his elitist thinking .. that they are ignorant of other farm crops ... that they grow poppies because they don't know any better.  *slap hand on forehead*

I think once Hillary is out of the running his elitist, racist, inexperienced real self will be publicized to a wider audience.

FEB

Corn as the cash crop for Afganistan. Great idea!

Susie and Paulette, Thanks for all your great research,as usual. Someday I will learn to figure out how to do that.

I was riding my bike this morning, listening to a local african american talk show host whom I really enjoy, but can never remember her last name. She was talking about the whole church affiliation for Obama. First she said how, in order to become politically active in Chicago, he needed to join a church. As an atheist in those days, he was drawn to Wright's church and the whole African emphasis.  They helped to move him up the ranks of politics from Chicago, to state, to Senate. Then Barack realized that this relationship was going to hold him back in a national campaign, and they got ticked off. That is why they continue to say such outrageous things. It is their way of punishing him "not dancing with the one that brought you".

"Father" Fleger has been a thorn in the side of the Chicago Archdiosese for over 20 years. They applaud him for bringing blacks to a church which was empty after the white catholics moved, so they have turned their back on a lot of racist statements he has made over the years. They are too afraid of the backlash if they move him out. He will cry racism like he always does. However, his latest rant may give them the ammo the Cardinal  needs to finally send him on his way.

I just read a poll that 80% of Europeans are backing Obama. Another reason not to vote for him. LOL!

Well I need to go put some of that $4.22 gal gas in my tank.

Thanks to all the Illinois taxes, we pay more than anyone. And there are people who want an Illinois polititian running the country??!!

Alaska, we need you!

Anonymous

First of all, I think Deb (Alaskadeb) wants to keep her governor.  She's well liked.

Susie and Paulette and Rocktobermom, thanks for all the "reading material."  Some of it's HYSTERICAL!  Kinda sad, isn't it?  Oh, if this man gets elected we're in deep doo-doo.  I hope to get my gypsy daughter and her dh to read all of this.  They hate it when I talk about politics!  And, they may move to Oregon!  Oh my gosh!  Their heads will really be screwed with!  McCain's another Bush, they say. 

Governor Palin, if you're asked to be VP PLEASE help us out!

Shirley   

Anonymous

Be sure to watch or record Chris Wallace tonight.  It's gonna be good!  Pork: Earmarks for Profit   He's gonna show how our congressmen line their pockets with our hard earned money.

I think I'll go hug a tree.

Shirley

Anonymous

With the price of oil what the heck are they thinking.  Our economy is going to h*ll in a hand basket.  And, would someone tell me what alternative energy are they going to be producing?  I'm all for "clean living," but I believe we need to do it all!!!

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/groups-prepare-for-next-weeks-climate-debate-2008-05-31.html

Groups prepare for next week's climate debate

By Jim Snyder

Posted: 05/31/08 11:48 AM [ET]

Business associations, unions, environmental organizations and faith-based groups are all gearing up for a major debate next week on a measure that aims to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions. While the climate change bill is not expected to pass the Senate, the upcoming debate has caused groups from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas to weigh in on the issue. The bill, scheduled to be on the Senate floor beginning Monday, seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions in this country by around 65 percent over the next four decades. Its regulations could touch on as much as 85 percent of the economy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the bill's main authors, used the Democratic radio address on Saturday to press the case for action. The legislation, she said, "will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence. Other benefits of our legislation will be cleaner air, energy efficiency, relief for consumers and the alternative energy choices that American families deserve." Both the breadth of the legislation and the enormity of the potential problems caused by global climate change have attracted the usual suspects in energy and environmental debates, and a number of newcomers as well. Supporters, in particular, want to demonstrate how their coalition has grown as the scientific consensus that humans are major contributors to the rise in global temperatures has hardened. On Friday, environmental, development and faith based groups said in a letter to senators that they supported the bill, which has been crafted by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) and then revised by Boxer, the Environment and Public Works Committee chairwoman. "Climate change poses one of the greatest challenges to efforts to promote development around the world and reduce global poverty," the groups wrote. Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Progressive National Baptist Convention and others signed the letter. It is undeniable that the coalition supporting a so-called "cap and trade" climate bill has grown since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and action seemed much more likely. But lobbyists for fossil fuels industries say they are warming to the fight. With gas prices high and the economy sputtering, manufacturers and other businesses plan to stress how much the bill would cost and how many jobs could be lost. "We want to let the voters know that there is a price tag to this," said one Republican lobbyist. In a video sent out on YouTube, Jay Timmons, head of the National Association of Manufacturers lobbying effort, warns that the climate bill could cause "severe damage" to the American economy. The group is encouraging its members to contact Senate offices opposing the bill. To counteract that criticism, the bill's authors have added a new safety valve provision to the bill that would make more emissions allowances available earlier to ease a price spike for the credit. The credit would allow the bearer to emit one ton of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, into the air. The Environmental Protection Agency would give some allowances away to industries for free under the bill. But industries would also have to purchase credits on an open market at some point. Some labor groups, which have not always seen eye to eye with environmentalists, though they are both key Democratic constituencies, are now on board: "This crucial legislation ... will promote clean-energy infrastructure investments while providing enormous economic opportunity for thousands of highly skilled building and construction trades workers," a letter from the Building and Construction Trades union states. In addition, a group of investors and pension managers wrote senators two weeks ago in support of the measure. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is also backing the bill. But even supporters want it tweaked. Some groups want to require steeper emissions reductions earlier, for example, by limiting the number of free allowances given away. Aid groups want more money dedicated to help poor countries adapt to the effects of a changing climate. It's all likely too complicated to be worked out in a week or two. But with all three presidential candidates embracing the idea of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate debate could very well prove to have been the beginning of action on a long sought climate bill in the United States.

 

saluki

Well wonders never cease--CNN and FOX is reporting Obama is finally finally giving up his membership in Trinity---Twenty years too late if you ask me.------

I hear another speech coming.----Distractions, Distractions, Distractions

Guess thats what the rest of the Super delegates were waiting to hear.

Anonymous

You've got to be kidding!  For real!  I wonder how that's gonna affect him politically.  He thought his new minister was a nice young man.  He knew what the priest was about.  So, now I can tell my dd that yeah, he thinks this raciest rants does affect him.  She couldn't understand why I would hold what his minister preached against Obama. 

Thanks for telling us.  Now I'll have to watch and see what else developes.  It's like a soap opera.

Shirley

shokk

Hello fellow republicans.............yea just heard the news that Obama is leaving Trinity........holy smoke you have to wonder what is going to happen now........there is no telling what info that church has on his "community activism"...........I was wondering........when someone makes their living out of being a community organizer.......I always think of them as "grant feeders"........they are people that learn to work the system in obtaining government grants to bring to their "neighborhoods" for improvements, low income housing, after school programs, etc........the only problem with this is that having to account for how the money is spent is extremely lax.........remember they were reporting that when Obama was in the IL state senate he had secured 200,000 dollars in grants to go to Father Fleger..........this Chicago south Side mafia (Wright, Phleger, the weather underground people) have been stealing our tax dollars to not only line their own pockets but to promote their Marxist ideas..............another thing I heard was that Father Fleger has two adopted children.........it may be ok but just seems a bit creepy......I also heard the the October surprise is going to be a video tape of Michelle(I can't believe I had to pay back my student loans) Obama doing a speech very much like Wright about how horrible white people are...........supposely RNC has it.........we shall see......could be just rumor.......ok Obama is getting ready to speak about Trinity............Shokk

saluki

Just in time to coincide with Obama's Messianic cover on Newsweek--

I'm worried O'Reilly may have a stroke after he sees this.  He was off the charts Thursday talking about how bias the press has been against Hillary.

And on Newsweek being in bed with The Daily Kos---he's been breathing fire.

Wait till he gets a hold of this Anointment issue.

------------

Here is what The Weekly Standard has to say:

Daily Blog Buzz: Newsweek REALLY Hearts Obama

Newsweek hearts Obama

Bloggers have been buzzing about Newsweek's startlingly biased cover story, "Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble" by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas. The article explains "how Obama and his team will battle the GOP onslaught." Bloggers agree that Newsweek is now officially shilling for the Obama campaign.

Just how biased is the article? At the Corner, Rich Lowry posts comments from McCain adviser Steve Schmidt: "It's one of the top five most biased pieces of journalism ever written. It's a broad attack on the Republican party. It deliberately fails to mention the increasing negative energy on the MoveOn.org side and the 527's on the left. It tries to define issues of great importance as illegitimate." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey further dissects the article and concludes, "That’s a lot of propaganda to pack into such a small space, but Wolfe and Thomas are pros." And the STANDARD's own Sonny Bunch, blogging at Doublethink, explains, "Just in case Newsweek didn’t spell it out for you in stark enough terms: Obama=America’s last great hope; McCain=Worse than Nixon."

And Newsweek might as well be considered part of the Obama campaign. At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard calls it "a truly disgraceful Newsweek article which continued to demonstrate just how in the tank media are for Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama." At Contentions, Pete Wehner says that Obama is lucky: "Few people are fortunate enough to receive the kind of love and tenderness we find in the Newsweek story." And The Corner's Kathryn Lopez discusses the moving black-and-white cover: "Nothing like the MSM driving home the 'historic moment' (you want to be a part of! Yes We Can!) point."

Luckily, Mark Salter wrote a sharp letter to the Newsweek editor, calling out the authors on their misleading statements. But, as Goldfarb noted here, "It's also worth noting what Salter does not say. After furiously denying that the campaign will make an issue out of Obama's race or religion, Salter makes no mention of whether hanging around with America-haters is fair game. But the GOP won't need to 'paint' anything to make that case." As the Gateway Pundit agrees and says of Obama's friends, the truth will "speak for itself." And no adoring Newsweek profile can stop that.

Posted by Samantha Sault on May 13, 2008 01:43 PM | Permalink

shokk

Ok here is what we get to see until November:

Let's say McCain and Obama are having a debate.....

McCain:  I think Senator's Obama inexperience in dealing with foreign policy is not what this country needs in a time of war.

Obama: I think Senator McCain hates me because I'm black and is a raciest!

And because the media LOVES Obama for some insane reason they will take anything that is debated, any idea that is different then Obama's, any disagreement about how to proceed with ANY policy and the right is going to be racist!  And whom are the true racist?  Could that be the leaders and movers and shakers at Trinity  and the South Side Chicago politicians?.....hmmmmmm........makes one wonder.......the race baters.....the Christian leaders at Trinity that teach never forgive instead of forgive...........Shokk

jerseymaria

just heard a little while ago on the news that obama has resigned from his church.  about time i think...but personally i think he agrees completely with the racist rants that go on there...why else would he stay for so long.  just my  humble opinion.

Anonymous

WOW!  This Otis Moss is a wonderful young preacher?  He is preaching that they should compare leprosy to being black?  That's a new one.  How can people move on if even pastors are stoking the fire?

And James Meeks calling Mayor Daly out: 

"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated."

"You got some preachers that are house n#$#%. You got some elected officials that are house n#@!#. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man."

These are preachers?

FEB

Schokk, thanks for all the links. You girls really do your homework. I learn so much from you all!

Rocktober-funny you should mention Meeks. Have you noticed that he is not coming out for Obama. The woman talk show host I listened to this morning also brought this up. She noted that Meeks is involved with the JesseJackson branch of Chicago pols. Since they are already grooming Jesse Jr., who is an Ill. rep., they do not want to back Obama. So the plot thickens.

I heard Hannity is waiting to drop the bomb, or "Obomba". He is just waiting for the right time.

I am going to take a long shot, but I think that even Ill. may even go for McCain. We went to Reagan in 80. This is a very independent state, without Chicago/ Cook county, and if enough stuff keeps coming up about him, the rest of the state will vote for McCain. Although I think da mayor will still probably get his cemetery contingent to get to the polls. LOL

FEB

Schokk, thanks for all the links. You girls really do your homework. I learn so much from you all!

Rocktober-funny you should mention Meeks. Have you noticed that he is not coming out for Obama. The woman talk show host I listened to this morning also brought this up. She noted that Meeks is involved with the JesseJackson branch of Chicago pols. Since they are already grooming Jesse Jr., who is an Ill. rep., they do not want to back Obama. So the plot thickens.

I heard Hannity is waiting to drop the bomb, or "Obomba". He is just waiting for the right time.

I am going to take a long shot, but I think that even Ill. may even go for McCain. We went to Reagan in 80. This is a very independent state, without Chicago/ Cook county, and if enough stuff keeps coming up about him, the rest of the state will vote for McCain. Although I think da mayor will still probably get his cemetery contingent to get to the polls. LOL