The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Options
12021232526252

Comments

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    The dress was only $150!!??  Wow!!  HAHAHA!  Yep, Linda, she should have gone to Kohls.  They have some good bargains.  But who needs bargains when you're rich?  And don't forget, Obama doesn't want us to drive our SUVs (I don't have one), keep our theromstats at 72 degrees (I suppose that depends on what season he's talking about) or eat too much. LOL  Oh, he scares the crap out of me.

    Here's an article on drilling.  I want to kick some _______!

    Gas prices emerging as #1 issue - Are you listening Sen. McCain?

    Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 18, 2008 at 6:44 am

    From election cycle to election cycle, it's hard to predict what issues will rise to the top and really drive the electorate. In prior decades, no politician would talk about illegal immigration. In the last election cycle, it was one of the main issues on voters' minds. Now, the soaring price of a barrel of oil has led to steep increases in the price of gasoline. The price has reached the boiling point to where voters aren't just grumbling, they are demanding action, and the action they are demanding is different from the recent past.

    It was easy for Democrats to blame the "big" oil companies. They would bring oil executives before Congress, lambast them, and feel good about themselves. However, public opinion is changing. The American people are seeing through the left-wing effort to cloud the issue. The price of gasoline is driven by supply and demand. The proper approach is to address both aspects. We should conserve and look for energy alternatives to hit the "demand" side. We should also look at the "supply" side and see how ridiculous it is to leave the fate of America in the hands of unstable Middle-Eastern countries when we have huge supplies of untapped domestic oil. Americans want to drill at home, and Sen. McCain has a golden opportunity to seize upon this issue. Is he listening?

    In a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen notes that "most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump."

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey -- conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue -- finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

    According to Rasmussen, "64% of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it." And here is the key statistic... "Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned." The writing is clearly on the wall: this is an issue that McCain must address and exhibit some leadership.

    In Sen. McCain's speech on Tuesday regarding "energy security", the senator accurately pointed out the current state of oil dependence:

    Whoever controls oil controls much more than oil. And in our time, much of the world's oil supply is controlled by states, regimes, and a cartel for which America's well being is not exactly a priority. Many occupy a violent part of the world -- a region all the more violent for the influence of oil wealth. Their opinion of America runs the full spectrum from indifference to hatred. And yet these regimes are today the masters of the oil market.

    Somehow the United States -- in so many ways the most self-reliant of nations -- has allowed and at times even encouraged this state of affairs. This was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation twenty years ago. It is a dangerous situation today. And starting in the term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy future, and become once again the master of our fate.

    But what is McCain actually going to do? First of all, McCain must get off this left-wing kick on global warming. Yes, the earth's temperature goes up and down, but there is no evidence that any warming trend is caused by human activity. We should all do our part to protect the environment, but buying into policies based on false science which will produce more taxes and hurt productivity is not the way to do it. There was once a time when ice covered large portions of North America. The temperature of the planet changed so dramatically that the ice melted, creating the Great Lakes and many parts of the terrain of the United States. Global warming? Yes. Man-made and needs taxes and anti-business legislation? No.

    In his speech, McCain says:

    But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

    We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.

    Here, the senator is right on target. We must increase domestic production to address the "supply" side of the equation. Congress is standing in the way, and the American people must make their voices heard on this issue. Just as we stopped their attempts at amnesty, if we join together, we can demand more domestic oil production. Make no mistake... through legislation and regulations, Congress is responsible for our vast dependence on the Middle East for oil.

    This is where the left is so out of touch. People like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer stand up and demand that President Bush pressure countries like Saudi Arabia to increase production, but he won't allow production at home? The president gets criticized by the liberals for being a "bully," but that's exactly what Schumer wants the president to be when it comes to increasing oil production. Rather than increasing our national security and driving prices down by producing more oil at home, the only thing Schumer wants America to do is to actually increase our dependence on foreign oil by demanding OPEC supply more.

    McCain is also missing the boat and buying into the liberal's anti-production policies by refusing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In his speech McCain said, "Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason."

    Give me a break! As columnist George Will noted on Fox News on Tuesday night, McCain compares drilling in ANWR to drilling in the Grand Canyon. How ridiculous. George Will rightly explains that the Grand Canyon is a national landmark, visited by millions of tourists. NO ONE visits ANWR. The site that is anticipated for drilling is about the size of a soccer field. That's it!

    We need more domestic drilling, and the left just doesn't get it. An Obama spokesman responding to McCain's call for ending the ban on offshore drilling said, "McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies." Failed our families? How would they know? Thanks to these bans and regulations, we haven't been able to try the plan.

    Sen. McCain is on the right track in calling for lifting the ban on offshore drilling. He is right that we need more domestic production. He needs to step up and lead on this issue. We can't cower to the left and be afraid of angering some environmentalist. McCain needs to stop the global warming chatter, and show the American people that the best way to ensure America's national security interests are to take our fate out of the hands of the Middle East. I certainly hope he can do it.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Gov. Palin needs to invite McCain to her State, and he needs to accept the invitation.  They both should look at the area she wants to develop.  Make it a photo op, then have a news conference about it and he'll win the election.  

    Obama has changed his mind about things every 5 minutes in these past few days, NAFTA and opting out of govt. campaign funding, so McCain needs to take the lead in this quickly before someone hits Obama over the head about drilling and he finally gets it.  It would be fun to watch all the dem Senators having to change their minds suddenly and give speeches to it.  Especially since they all got up for the record to denounce drilling.  Ah, the joy to watch that.

  • FEB
    FEB Member Posts: 552
    edited October 2008

    Isn' t it amazing how BO has been all over the air waves explaining his views, free air time, and McCain only gets a couple of sound bites on Fox. How can he win like this??? And now they say BO is going to be able to raise over 300 mil on his own, while McCain has to toe the line. And they all give him a pass on his back tracking. If McCain had just one of BO's skeletons in his closet he would be toast, yet BO has a walkin closet full of them, dressed in designer clothes, and he is constantly allowed to close the closet door and say, stay out of there, how dare you go in my closet!! What McCain really needs to do is get the press to make BO's skeleton's come out of the closet for once!!

    I just hope the American people are smarter than this. If we are so stupid that we will allow the press to manipulate us, they we deserve the lousy government we will get. I still have hope. We didn't elect Gorie or Kerry so I still think we have a little hope. That's "hope for change we can survive in".

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    The funny part of this, Obama is politics as usual.  He came onto the scene kissing up to those who could advance him regardless of what they said or DID in their former or present lives; and it doesn't seem to matter to his followers today.  It's beyond all reason. 

    Not taking gov't funding isn't that the same old time politics as usual?  $85 million can't get a person elected in the next 4 months?  Don't we wish we all owned ad agencies right now. 

    On a good note, I was reading that the above 50 crowd are about 51% of the actual voters.  Maybe there is hope for a little sanity. 

    If he keeps changing his mind about everything he said during the primaries, inexperienced and indecisive will forever more be his handle.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    This man absolutely makes me sick!  How can he say that taking campaign financing is broken!?  His little sidekicks say when people go to the polls he's sure they won't say, oh, he didn't take money from the government (which, of course, means us).  If people do not "get it" how he flip flops every single day then they are just too stupid.  Oops, I'm not supposed to use the word, stupid.  My grandchildren tell me that's a BAD WORD. LOL

    And then they try to explain how they can raise taxes on people who make $250,000 or more.  You know, redistribution.  Cavuto tells him that people in California may not think $250,000 is all that much.  Then, the little guy sort of side steps.  Well, maybe $300,000.

    Just like Fox people say.  We want Saudi to drill, but we won't allow companies to drill here.  What hypocrits! 

    And then you hear some say that HIGH GAS PRICES IS GOOD!  WTH!  Good for what?  Our economy?  Our national security?  Oh, yes.  I forgot.  By prices being so high we will change our habits.  Well, sir, the truckers and airline industry cannot make money and change their habits.  It all trickles down to us.  And, I am furious!

    We are political pawns.  When are people going to wake up?  I'm having palpitations!  Surprised JOKING!

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    This man absolutely makes me sick!  How can he say that taking campaign financing is broken!?  His little sidekicks say when people go to the polls he's sure they won't say, oh, he didn't take money from the government (which, of course, means us).  If people do not "get it" how he flip flops every single day then they are just too stupid.  Oops, I'm not supposed to use the word, stupid.  My grandchildren tell me that's a BAD WORD. LOL

    And then they try to explain how they can raise taxes on people who make $250,000 or more.  You know, redistribution.  Cavuto tells him that people in California may not think $250,000 is all that much.  Then, the little guy sort of side steps.  Well, maybe $300,000.

    Just like Fox people say.  We want Saudi to drill, but we won't allow companies to drill here.  What hypocrits! 

    And then you hear some say that HIGH GAS PRICES IS GOOD!  WTH!  Good for what?  Our economy?  Our national security?  Oh, yes.  I forgot.  By prices being so high we will change our habits.  Well, sir, the truckers and airline industry (among others) cannot make money and change their habits.  It all trickles down to us.  And, I am furious!

    We are political pawns.  When are people going to wake up?  I'm having palpitations!  Surprised JOKING!

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    I just thought I'd start our day off with a kick-start.  Obama is blaming McCain for the levee's breaking.  I just love that man. 

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/obama

    This is why it's hard for Senators to get elected because their voting history is their history, but there are reasons why certain legislation gets voted against and those reasons we don't hear about. 

    In this case it was all the earmarks attached to the bill that McCain was against. (There was one bill that Bush signed with 600 earmarks attached to it).

    "McCain's campaign said Obama opposed an amendment that McCain co-sponsored to prioritize flood control spending. The bipartisan amendment, which failed overwhelmingly on a 69-22 vote, would have made sure "lifesaving levees like those that so tragically failed in Iowa and Missouri are given the highest priority and fixed first," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

    "It is beyond the pale that Barack Obama would attack John McCain for actually trying to fix the problem and change the way Washington works," Bounds said. "Barack Obama's willingness to continue the status quo pork-barrel politics in Washington, and then engage in political attacks that entirely disregard the facts, once again fundamentally shows that he's nothing more than a typical politician."

    The problem I'm having with this is that a national disaster that is causing deaths and monetary pain is becoming a football in the political arena.  I guess it had to happen in a political year, but the ramifications of this flooding is yet to be felt in the world as we are the worlds' breadbasket.  Look at the recent food riots in Egypt. 

    If there is an outrage here, it's the fact that 69 Senators voted against prioritizing what got fixed first.  The bill passed, but the levees weren't fixed first.  That's the real outrage.  And Obama was part of the problem, he voted against it. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

          

    I hope McCain comes out fighting! 

    Why must Obama tell big fat white lies!  Oh, I forgot.  He doesn't know why McCain voted against earmarks.  Six hundred earmarks attached!  Yes, Washington IS broken and we need McCain in there to fix it.  We need a REAL change!

    Shirley

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Obama has been getting extremely negative lately.  Today he's blaming McCain for legislation that has loopholes in it to allow the futures traders to make fortunes.  I'm going to try to understand this, (if I can) because I don't know who to get mad at and it's very annoying.  Somehow these traders are driving up the price of oil, if it's not due to supply, and I don't know how that's possible. 

    Middlemen can drive up prices, but traders?  Pffffhhht, over my head.

    I think I read that Obama spent 143 days in the Senate before he took off to run for the nomination.  He has no real history of legislation voting, so he can have a field day with McCain's loooong voting history and he's doing it. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Rosemary, some dispute the "speculator" thing.  I don't understand it either.  My brother was trying to explain it to me.  I don't know who to believe, but right now I know who to vote for.

    And, I was watching Fox and saw what ANWR looked like.  NOTHING!  And, as I'm sure you've heard, if they drill there the land they'd use would be the size of a postage stamp.

    And, when anyone says anything about McCain "flip-flopping" on drilling...no, he's changed his mind because of the gas prices and our economy.  Any fool can understand that!

    When Obama starts beating McCain on his voting record he better know what he's talking about because many bills have earmarks attached and that's why McCain has voted against many of them.

    Shirley

    Shirley

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Shirley,

    What I don't like about this is McCain is playing defense all the time.  Every day there is something out of the Obama camp blaming McCain for something.  I didn't realize he was so important in the Senate, and his one vote is killing all legislation the way they're proposing it is.  Wow, I'm impressed, he's a powerful man.

    Today, McCain will be blamed for any ads that are race tinged, this is coming from the Obama camp.  And J. Wright will be considered a race tinged message.  Hmmm, McCain didn't bring that guy into our living rooms, but he's off bounds in ads.  Don't we just love it when the other side can dictate what is inbounds and outta bounds to the McCain campaign.  They're shaking in their boots, I'm sure.  But Obama can offend everyone as he often does.  Not a problem.

    Normally, far left wingers don't get into the White House.  First of all we can't afford them, especially with the democrats in control of both houses.  I see bankruptcy in our near future with those free spenders having total control.  Sorry world, America can't pay our debts, we've borrowed from Social Security too many times, we're out of money and our printing presses have collapsed from overuse.

    It's hard for me to believe America won't wake up in time this November. 

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited June 2008

    Well my Blood Pressure is sky high Systolic over 200 and diastolic

    110 so they have added a loop diuretic plus emergency oral catapress if the diastolic goes higher--to my BP meds-- They've brought it down a little and given me careful instructions to get to the ER if I have any symptoms and keep a log of my daily Blood pressure.

    Anyway, for my own self preservation I've decided to live in an Obama free zone--At this point even my sister when visiting will change the station the moment Obama appears--

    Truly don't know how I will avoid him for the next eight years if he's elected.

    Seem's like he's not waiting till January

    from the BeldarBlog:

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

    Legal, but offensively cocky: Obama rips off official presidential seal for his podium, and adds the motto "Vero Possumus"

    Yeah, sure, I'd defend to the death Obama's technical legal right under the First Amendment to mangle national icons, burn flags, yada yada yada. It's a free country, and that freedom includes the right to engage in political expression that is crass, tasteless, and irredeemably cocky.

    And one of the perquisites of being an incumbent president who's running for re-election is that, well, you actually are the POTUS, so you're entitled to speak to audiences from behind a podium that bears the official presidential seal. No one meets that description this year, however.

    Nevertheless, the junior senator from Illinois, who's yet to complete his first term in the United States Senate, apparently feels entitled to rip off the most familiar elements of the official Seal of the President of the United States for his campaign use — and then to combine it with some of his own campaign artwork:

    The Great Seal of Obamaland (photo: NYT)   The Seal of the President of the United States

    According to the NYT Politics Blog (bold-face mine):

    At a discussion with a dozen Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday morning, each of the governors was identified with a small name plate but Senator Barack Obama sat behind a low rostrum to which was attached an official-looking seal no one had seen before....

    Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” ...

    Us God-loving, bitter, clinging gun-owners in the fly-over country have an expression for the kind of arrogance required to appropriate the seal of a public office to which one hasn't quite yet been elected: "He's dang sure gotten too big fer his britches," we'd say.

    In response to which, someone might ask: "Can you folks usually find a way to deal with young fellas who're too big fer their britches?"

    To which the answer — which I'm sure is spoken confidently and frequently on at least the West Texas prairies of my own birth, and perhaps elsewhere — is surely: "Vero Possumus!" Which, out here in fly-over land, roughly translates to: "You bet yer road-kill possum butt we can!" (I'll spare you the photographs of the possums, with or without the surrounding seal.)

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

     PS: By the way Shirley, that Obamatroid that you refer to on Fox from Temple U is Mark Lamont --thoroughly irritating to listen to---

    PS--I guess someone figured out this may be  bad taste so you lucky people can no longer get screen-savers with Obama's seal

  • FEB
    FEB Member Posts: 552
    edited October 2008

    Susie

    Wish we could declare a NOBAMA Zone somewhere for you!! Unfortunately, the press loves him so much he is everywhere!

    His arrogance is unbelievable. Besides the adopting the presidental seal, he told a group in Chicago that he would be into his second term when Chicago gets the Olympics in 2016. Not only is he already calling himself the winner, he thinks he is going to be reelected.

    If he does win, he will have carte blanche from a Demo congress and we will be in for dire times.

    It will be a true DEMOlition Derby on the USA.

    The Chicago Tribune did an article this weeked stating that they think NOBAMA could earn half a billion!! That can buy a lot of TV time.

    When are people going to wake up and see who this guy really is.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Linda, I truly hope people don't believe his explanation on why he's not taking campaign financing.  If they can't see through his lies that he's JUST another politician, then they are stuck on stupid!  He should have been truthful and said, I can raise more money via internet.  Does he really think.......never mind.

    On Fox I was watching, I think, Just In with Laura and Obama said a "no, no" which will never see the light of day in the press.  He said something like this, They will tell you I'm inexperienced (and people laugh), they'll tell you I have a funny name (and people laugh), and they'll say..and did  you notice he's black (and people laugh).  I  believe that was supposed to NOT get out into the public...like the Bible carrying, gun toting.......statement.

    And I heard on Fox that he said "just get over it."  Well, not exactly.  He was saying that if they put McCain and him side by side and saw what each stood far that the Hillary "lovers" (my word) will get over it.  There were some darn mad women when they heard about this.  You'll probably be hearing more.  And then he'll have to say, you misunderstood what I said...yada yada.

    Susie, this campaign is enough to elevate your BP.  It may be a good idea for you to rent some movies so you won't have to see BO's (bad order) millions of $$$$$$$ commercial's.  You know, campaign financing is broken. His mug is going to be ALL over the states.

    My BP goes up because I can't stand two of my girls saying that if we vote in McCain (or a Republican) we'll just have four or more years of the same.  Somebody needs to tape my mouth!   

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Just heard on Fox that Obama will not longer use this "presidential seal."  It was just for a ONE TIME USE!  If anyone believes that there's no help for them.  Even dems, and I believe, the NYT had something to say about it. 

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited June 2008

    Obviously, having a problem staying away from all things Obama today but I'm trying---Tivo is getting a workout --as are DVD's

    A new kind of politician alright!

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

    Experts Reject Claim of 527s Spending Millions to Oppose Obama
    By Pete Winn
    CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
    June 23, 2008

    (CNSNews.com) - Campaign finance analysts say that conservative or Republican-affiliated "527" independent political committees have raised far less money than such groups affiliated with Democrats.

    "The Democratic organizations, through the 15-month point, have raised more than three times as much as the Republican groups -- $87 million to $24 million," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

    Malbin, whose nonpartisan group is affiliated with George Washington University and tracks campaign finances, said it was ironic that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) last week blamed his decision not to take public financing, in part, on the supposed need to stockpile money to counter independent "527" committees.

    Last Thursday, Obama said he was foregoing the $85 million in public funding he could have received because it tied his hands -- and because the campaign finance system was allegedly slanted toward his expected Republican challenger, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

    Accusing McCain of being "fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," Obama said that 527s tied to McCain and the Republican National Committee are "spending millions and millions in unlimited donations" to attack him.

    "We've already seen that (McCain's) not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," the putative Democratic presidential nominee said in a statement e-mailed to Cybercast News Service in lieu of a requested interview.

    However, Sean Parnell, president of the nonpartisan Center for Competitive Politics, said that Obama's claims were simply not accurate.

    "Sen. Obama is being incredibly disingenuous when he makes that statement because there is no way Sen. McCain -- or Sen. Obama, for that matter -- can control or limit these 527 organizations -- nor should they be able to," Parnell said.

    So-called "527" groups, named after the section of the IRS tax code that allows their creation, are groups founded by citizens who believe they should have a voice, he added.

    "I see that as a very healthy thing," said Parnell, no relation to the Alaska lieutenant governor of the same name.

    "We don't want a political system where only the candidates are allowed to talk about issues, and the citizens are essentially told to 'sit down and shut up' and on the first Tuesday of November make a decision," he added. "What 527s ensure is that a broad range of voices are included in campaigns."

    Malbin, meanwhile, agreed that Obama was being disingenuous.

    "He really wasn't complaining when he went to AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union) this week," the former State University of New York professor told Cybercast News Service.

    "(This is a group) which ran an ad paid for by its 527 to attack John McCain just before Obama visited and sought their endorsement," Malbin said. "Are labor union 527s good and other 527s bad?"

    That ad, which cost more than $540,000 to produce, is airing nationally on CNN and MSNBC, as well in the key labor states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.

    Jointly produced by AFSCME and the liberal online activist organization MoveOn.org, the ad implies that McCain's Iraq policy would lead to the involvement of U.S. troops over generations.

    AFSCME declined to talk to Cybercast News Service about the ad or its endorsement.

    Interestingly, MoveOn.org, which did not respond to an interview request, is hosting its own pro-Obama campaign events -- "Bake Sale for Obama" -- the weekend of June 21-22. According to the Obama campaign, the nonprofit liberal activists have set up "hundreds of bake sales" to fund the organization's "campaign to win the WhiteHouse."

    The Democrat's refusal to accept federal funds drew criticism from plenty of quarters -- especially the McCain camp, which said it will likely take in the much-needed cash.

    "Obama set up a deal with the [Federal Election Commission] to take public financing, then publicly pledged to take it if his opponent did as well," McCain spokesman Brian Rodgers told Cybercast News Service. "And now, he's broken his word to the American people."

    Nevertheless, both Parnell and Malbin defend Obama's right to refuse the money.

    "A lot of people are portraying this as the death of campaign finance reform," Malbin said. "I don't see it that way. Sen. Obama made a calculation that it would hurt him more than it would help him."

    Malbin added: "I think the real problem he has is not that he made a calculation, but that in February 2007, instead of saying, 'I will take funding if my opponent does,' he should have said, 'I will take it if it is convenient for me.'"

    However, Parnell sees opting out of taking federal money as a positive move for democracy.

    "I think it is a great step forward," he told Cybercast News Service. "One of the things that accepting public funding means is limiting the communication that a candidate is able to make to voters and citizens. By rejecting that regime, what Obama has decided to do is spend as much money as he can raise in order to communicate his message to voters.

    "I think that's a positive step for democracy," he added.

    According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama has already raised $265 million dollars from individuals, dwarfing McCain's $88 million.

    (Cybercast News Service correspondent Michael Gryboski contributed to this report.)

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

    And even this from the "unbiased" LOL NYT

    Ya gotta love this new kind of politics........................

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

    June 23, 2008

    Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

    When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry's most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.

    Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country's second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

    Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

    In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol "ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth." America's oil dependence, he added, "makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term."

    Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, "he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy."

    Mr. Obama's lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.

    Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation's largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

    Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic policy director, said Mr. Obama's stance on ethanol was based on its merits. "That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward," Mr. Furman said.

    Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, "He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what's best for the country."

    Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked "with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities," including the Governors' Ethanol Coalition.

    Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, "He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things."

    Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve "energy security" while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

    Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

    "We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market" and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. "Besides, it is wrong," he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, "which is much more efficient than corn ethanol."

    Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build "energy independence," he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization's rules but which his advisers say is not.

    Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.

    "If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in," said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. "But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it."

    Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.

    Mr. Furman said the campaign continued to examine the issue. "We want to evaluate all our energy subsidies to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth," he said.

    He added that Mr. Obama favored "a range of initiatives" that were aimed at "diversification across countries and sources of energy," including cellulosic ethanol, and which, unlike Mr. McCain's proposals, were specifically meant to "reduce overall demand through conservation, new technology and improved efficiency."

    On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol. But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that "our country's drive toward energy independence" could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.

    "It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol," he argued.

    Mr. Obama does talk regularly about developing switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a source for ethanol. While the energy ratio for switchgrass and other types of cellulosic ethanol is much greater than corn, economists say that time-consuming investments in infrastructure would be required to make it viable, and with corn nearing $8 a bushel, farmers have little incentive to shift.

    Ethanol industry executives and advocates have not made large donations to either candidate for president, an examination of campaign contribution records shows. But they have noted the difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

    Brian Jennings, a vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said he hoped that Mr. McCain, as a presidential candidate, "would take a broader view of energy security and recognize the important role that ethanol plays."

    The candidates' views were tested recently in the Farm Bill approved by Congress that extended the subsidies for corn ethanol, though reducing them slightly, and the tariffs on imported sugar cane ethanol. Because Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were campaigning, neither voted. But Mr. McCain said that as president he would veto the bill, while Mr. Obama praised it.

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited June 2008

    Okay--Shutting off all things Obama---actually I was very good----was able to avoid all since last Tuesday----Obviously I've had a lapse. Frown

    Need to get back on the wagon and avoid any agitation.

    Thought this was enlightening especially considering it's from the NYT

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

    June 20, 2008
    Op-Ed Columnist

    The Two Obamas

    God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

    But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

    This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

    But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

    Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

    Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

    Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

    Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

    And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

    But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

    And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

    The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

    I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

    All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Susie, good stuff.  I sent the opinion piece for the NYT to my liberal children...well, I know one is on the fence, one will not vote for Obama, and the other one's been in Africa so long that she doesn't know what the heck is going on.  EXCEPT, we don't want another term of Bush.  Sick of hearing that.

    If McCain jumps on the bandwagon about drilling he may just win the election.  He's got to speak loud and clear about it.  And yes, we need to conserve and find affordable aternative energy.  Seems like most everything is made from oil...from the top of our heads to the bottom of our feet. 

    This election is scary as _______!

    Shirley

  • FEB
    FEB Member Posts: 552
    edited October 2008

    Susie

    Lots of luck in the NOBAMA Zone. I keep trying to hear someone in the media mention McCain but his name only comes up when BO is talking about him. It is infuriating. Maybe we will get lucky that people will get so sick of seeing his mug at every turn, that they will be sick of him just in time for the election.

    Anyway, tomorrow lets all tune in for a good laugh. That new goofy game show where people make fools of themselves in Japan sounds hilarious. I am up for a good laugh and can't wait!

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Susie,

    Sorry about the high BP.  I wish I had a magic elixir for you, but it is best to tune out the world right now. 

    A list of the cost of all the known 1st year Obama programs was on TV.  It's deep into the billions.  Free spending left-wingers have a very hard time getting elected especially if anyone takes a look at his proposals.  The man is fiscally unsound.  Whenever someone has a proposal, they're suppose to have a way to pay for it.  He will pay for some of it by taxing the windfall profits of the oil companies.  Then what about the rest of his proposals?  I don't see a mention of how they'll get paid for.   Taxing the rich, and giving tax credits to everyone else won't be enough money to pay for them.

    Of course, by taxing the windfall profits of our oil companies that might end exploration.  Hell, we don't need no damn domestic oil anyway.  We'll let China and Cuba take our oil from right under our noses.   $5, $6, $7, $8 who do we appreciate?  Not to worry, Obama will give us all money to offset those prices with tax credits and they'll all be able to keep those SUV's on the road.  Another great plan to save us.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Disgusting, isn't it?  I don't want to read about Obama.  I don't want to hear him speak.  I almost refuse to hear anything he says anymore. 

    Tonight while watching Hannity and Colmes it was reported that Obama is asking for people to donate to pay Hillary's whatever-million debt off.  Plus, she owes herself millions that she loaned her campaign.  Also, I believe they just had a meeting.  I'm assuming it was for her to start compaigning for him...to get her votes.  I hope the Hillary supporters sees through all of this.

    I feel an URGENCY to do SOMETHING!  I want to get on top my roof top and yell, people, wake up for Pete's sake!  This man, Obama, will do anything, say anything to get elected.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Today, I opened my email account and there's a picture of Obama in the ads.  I had a lot of deleting to do, but it started to get on my nerves.  I figure by Nov. I'll be working on my last nerve, so I have to pamper the ones I still have that aren't standing straight on end.

    I was listening to someone talk and they said when they asked their friends about issues, on 9 out of 10 issues the people wouldn't be voting for Obama, but when asked who they're voting for they said Obama.  We're doomed.  Issues don't even matter. 

    So we should start looking on the bright side, the dems love to spend money even when they don't have any to spend.  And they want to send us some to offset the cost of filling up our cars, and I say why not?  I hope it's not taxable income, what's the fun of that, give and then take away.  They're throwing the words tax credits around pretty freely, so maybe we'll get some more of them for other reasons, and no one will pay any taxes except the rich.  I do hope there's enough of those rich people to pay for everything.   

    The new and revised Carter plan of upping all taxes on corporations should take care of all the rest of those free spending plans. It didn't work in the 70's but hey this is a new time, we can try it again.   Then they want to increase social security withholding, so they'll have more money to bail them out in case they can't stop spending.  With all the baby boomers coming in to the system, they might have to make payments to them that they don't have, I say they should then up the taxes on the ....hmmm, I don't know who but they'll find something.

    So we'll make the best of it with all those tax credits to play with.  The Senate and house passed the $300 Billion bail-out for individual mortgages yesterday.  $300 BILLION.  We'll just have to wait and see if those same people who defaulted on their mortgages the first time, won't do it again.  Hey, big spenders, spend a little time with me.  (Peggy Lee)

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Right now, Rosemary, the main concern in this country is gas prices.  If Obama doesn't come up with something more than "we should do _______instead of drilling more" I think that'll give McCain an edges. 

    I don't know.  This is the craziest presidential campaign I think I've witnessed.  McCain is going to have to come after Obama HARD!  I realize there's no quick fix to this mess.

    Oh, my goodness, I saw Pelosi on Greta last night.  I wanted to "B" slap that woman right through the tube.  She thinks that a fresh face (one that's not been in Washington) will make a wonderful president.  What about his Chicago politics?  I really think she was wanting Hillary to lose.  I cannot stand that woman!  My BP almost goes up as high listening to her nosense.

    I believe she was blaming Bushes eight years on the energy problems.  Give me a freaking break, woman!  Greta says her interview was streaming on Fox.  I don't know if it's still there (sure it is), but I cannot listen to that woman anymore.

    Hannity's like me.  He was talking to an environmentalist and said when Ted puts up the wind power he'll do whatever...I think solar panels. 

    I feel sorry for the people who have long commutes.  Many of these people are just ordinary people who cannot afford to move in closer.  And then there's the people who wanted to live outside of suburbs where it seemed safer and quieter.  And now, with the gas prices rising their thinking about moving closer to work. 

    It's the biggest mess with no solutions.

    Shirley

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited June 2008

    Frankly, with media like this I'm surprised the "coronation" will hold off till the election.

    From NRO

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

    Obamaweek in Review
    Reading Newsweek so you don’t have to.

    By Mark Hemingway

    Conservatives have long complained about media bias. There’s been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the topic, and not without reason. So many articles (and even books) have been produced on the matter that to add one more to the list seems to be an exercise in post mortem equine sadism.

    But what Newsweek has been up to is begging for comment. So far this year, their Obama coverage has been a black hole of jaundiced journalism so dense that few straight truths and impartial observation can escape.

    This week’s issue is no different. Newsweek readers should be getting used to it by now, but it’s hard not to curse under your breath when you read a headline as offensively stupid as “Are You Experienced? Why a U.S. senator might not trump a state legislator.” You see, Barack Obama has more experience as a state legislator than any president since Abraham Lincoln, ergo . . . wait, what? Not that being in the state legislature isn’t useful, but it doesn’t exactly speak to all of the areas of expertise needed when you consider the awesome responsibilities of the commander-in-chief. When he wasn’t hashing out a compromise on the water-usage bill for farmers in Effingham, surely Obama paid close attention to all those top-secret national-security briefings they give to the Illinois legislature, right?

    Of course, no Newsweek campaign ’08 greatest-hits collection would be complete without “His Jewish Problem: A Myth?” from the June 16 issue. Barack Obama has huddled with a host of campaign advisers widely considered to be borderline anti-Semitic, including some who were in regular contact with Hamas. Obama sat on the board of a charitable foundation that gave money to a Palestinian organization that considers the founding of Israel a “catastrophe”; has had fundraising events in his name hosted by former PLO officials; disapproved of legislation in the Senate classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization even though they arm and fund Hezbollah (before he changed his mind); was endorsed by Hamas; and lost the Jewish vote in the Pennsylvania primary by 24 percent. But Newsweek looked at the issue closely, and determined that these problems are mythical. How, you might ask? Well, they got quotes from two self-professed Obama supporters — entertainment mogul David Geffen and New Jersey congressman Robert Andrews — saying so. Then they let Obama’s campaign accuse the most prominent Jew in Congress of helping spread malicious rumors that Obama is a Muslim without asking him for comment. Classy.

    Newsweek
    has established a clear pattern of using insincere contrarianism in headlines (a.k.a. the Slate disease) to help advance the Obama cause. Take this June 9 article from their website: “Obama’s Official Blog is Boring. McCain’s is Enjoyable. Why That’s Bad News for the GOP.” Of course, should that headline actually confuse you into thinking that Newsweek had some positive things to say about McCain’s campaign blog, they helpfully added a postscript — “UPDATE: Just to clear up some confusion: Obama is light years ahead of McCain on the Internet.” Got it.

    Then there’s the magazine’s obsession with painting Obama’s detractors as racist. This was not-so-subtly explored in the magazine’s June 2 cover package, “Obama, Race and Us,” portraying Obama smiling in a halo of light. The final cover was tonally at odds with Evan Thomas’s accompanying piece on race, “A Memo to Senator Obama” — which was far from sunny, trying all too hard to expound upon the gravity of the issue of Race in America. Thomas started the article with the observation that “
    Race is a difficult subject to talk and write about,” and seemed intent on proving it from that point forward, all the way to the concluding paragraph, in which he observed: “If poor rural whites and African-Americans could sit down together, they would find that they have much in common.” Sit down together? Of course! Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before?

    Fortunately, Jon Meacham’s editor’s note in the issue went a long way toward putting at ease any qualms a reader might have about excessive focus on Obama’s race:

    An important nuance: For those who support either Hillary Clinton or John McCain, the more precise and more useful way to frame the question is not whether America is ready to elect a black man president but rather should the country elect this black man president. This is a significant point, and it is critical that we bear in mind that one can be for McCain [or for Clinton] without being racist.

    So you’re not necessarily a racist if you don’t support Obama? How generous! Still, better to make sure you’re not racist. Meacham suggests you take a look at the “Racial Resentment Index” that Newsweek’s crack pollsters have developed to pierce the veil of American bigotry: “People lie to pollsters about race, but usually to appear more accepting, not more resentful.” Rest assured that Newsweek’s new index meets the gold standard for social-scientific inquiry. (Of course, these are the same pollsters, presumably, who recently announced that Obama had a 15-point lead over McCain when not a single other reputable poll had him up by anything more than six.)

    But wait, there’s more! If you thought Thomas laid it on thick with the race memo, be sure to read this article from May 19 by Thomas and Richard Wolffe, which proclaims: “He’s taken everything in stride, it seems. How Obama and his team will battle the GOP onslaught.” Thomas and Wolffe’s cool assessment of our intensely partisan landscape contains some real gems:

    The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. . . . It is a sure bet that the GOP will try to paint Obama as “the other” — as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.

    Ah, Republicans scaring voters — so that's what explains the political history of the last 40 years. And seriously, what kind of world do we live in where a guy can’t socialize and work with an unrepentant domestic terrorist for several years and then go to a church where the pastor is not averse to damning America from the pulpit days after 9/11 without getting accused of hanging around with “America-haters”?

    But perhaps the most trenchant observations are reserved for John McCain:

    Sen. John McCain himself has explicitly disavowed playing the race card or taking the low road generally. But he may not be able to resist casting doubt on Obama’s patriotism. And the real question is whether he can — or really wants to — rein in the merchants of slime and sellers of hate who populate the Internet and fund the “independent expenditure” groups who exercise their freedom in ways that give a bad name to free speech.

    Yes, even though McCain has “explicitly disavowed” taking the low road, Newsweek feels free to suggest that he encourages “merchants of slime and sellers of hate” to operate on his behalf. I take it the “real question” Thomas and Wolffe propose here is multiple choice, and integrity is not among the answers. No wonder the article prompted a 1,300-word letter to the editor in response from the McCain campaign.

    Now bear in mind that all this has appeared in Newsweek in the last two months. There are, by my calculation, 19 more issues of Newsweek between now and November 4. If they keep up this pace, the Federal Elections Commission may count the cost of a subscription as an in-kind donation to Obama.

    — Mark Hemingway is an
    NRO staff reporter.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    Susie, how's your BP?  You know that Newsweek is a joke.  I believe I've heard they're losing many subscribers.  Maybe they'll go belly-up!

    Shirley

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2008

    No matter what John McCain says, Slobama and his supporters will say he is playing the race card.  If John McCain wins, they will say that America is racist .... they won't ever think it's because we don't believe Obama, or because Obama is inexperienced or because he's a know-it-all or because Obama and his wife are racist.  Racism goes both ways. 

  • FEB
    FEB Member Posts: 552
    edited June 2008

    Did anyone see BO's new commercial where he is sitting in front of a window that has dividers that make crosses? Where is the outrage! WHo does he think he is, a republican? Only a republican would be so blatantly subtle about Christianity. Does he think this will get him the Christain right vote? And why isn't the press saying anything about it. Oh yeah , I forgot, only the repubs are suppose to separate church and state.

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited June 2008

    Oh he's working real hard to capture that evangelical vote.  So much so that he actually woke Dobson up.----Dobson may not want McCain because of Stem cell research and Gay rights----but the realization of Obama may be finally unifying some Republicans.

    Don't know how many of you saw this Supreme court decision today and the heinous crime involved but here are the details---Remember at least two Justices are going to be replaced in the next administration.

     http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/what-the-child-rapist-saved-today-by-supreme-court-liberals-did-to-his-8-year-old-stepdaughter/

    Some crimes by their very nature should have special circumstances and just because that poor child survived doesn't make the crime less heinous.  JMHO

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2008

    Last night I was watching some show, and they had Obama standing in front of a crucifix in one panel, and three others pretty much like it.  It's about time he woke up the evangelicals.  I might have to watch a show or two to see if they're as outraged as I was last night.  What a way to have to go to sleep.  

    Susie, try some very dark chocolate when you read anything Obama.  It might help.

    Texas has a similar law that will be moot now.  What a shame, I thought it would be a great deterrent to those filth, especially here in Texas where we like to keep the chair on warm.

Categories