Why Obama is a lock to win the election

[Harlan Huckleby]

1) Money. It's estimated Obama is going to raise close to half a billion dollars for the fall campaign! That's what was said on a Sunday news show today, it sounds unbelievable. Whatever the figure is, he will have more money than he can reasonably spend. (even if you include hillary's bail-out :D ) McCain's war chest is going to be a tiny fraction of this.

Obama's money-raising machine is a reflection of his appeal, so its fair.

2) There were endless stories this spring about Republicans planning to vote for Obama. These anecdotes were presented as evidence of Obama's broad appeal, that Obama is the harbinger of a New Age of Unity and solution-based politics.

In the last couple weeks, a lot of stories have been on TV and print about Democrats pledging to vote for McCain. This phenomena has been reported as a sort of mental defect or emotional imbalance. Hands are wrung by pundits as they discuss how this mental problem might be corrected in wayward Dems. The possibility that sane Democrats might simply prefer McCain is not even contemplated.

Every election the media arguably favors one candidate or another. And McCain is well-liked by the media. But we've never seen a phenomena like this year. It's going to be nearly impossible to overcome the steady, sometimes subtle spin that Obama benefits from. It's a tidal wave. Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dukakis .... past Democrats never had this level of push.

3) Obama is going to project as a much more appealing figure than an aging John McCain. A certain percentage of the population is going to vote completely on personality. Obama has endless money with which to wage this American Idol campaign.

4) The Republican brand name is dirty, even if Iraq stays hopeful. McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush, but even if he succeeds, a distancing campaign is unappealing. It's an albatross.

5) The Republicans are going to dirty-up BHO, and his background and associates (including his closest associate) are fair game. They can make the race more competitive, but it won't be enough.

[sheepshead]

1) The RNC is raising money at arecord pace. Not McCains campaign but the RNC.

2) is just crap

3) same as one

4) maybe--but the democrats dont have an electable candidate

5) The RNC doesnt have to try. This guy is anything BUT presidential material.

[Patler]

2) There were endless stories this spring about Republicans planning to vote for Obama. These anecdotes were presented as evidence of Obama's broad appeal, that Obama is the harbinger of a New Age of Unity and solution-based politics.



The only stories that I saw this spring about Republican cross-over to Obama, (and they were "endless, I agree) were from the open primary states, with Republicans figuring Obama would be more beatable in the general election than Clinton would be so they voted for Obama. Obama's camp may have tried to put the spin on it that you mentioned, but I don't think Obama has any broad-based appeal among Republicans.

[Patler]

5) The RNC doesnt have to try. This guy is anything BUT presidential material.

I tend to agree, but Bush wasn't qualified either in his first presidential campaign, nor was Clinton in his, nor Carter in his. Reagan may have been "presidential" in speech and demeanor, but he wasn't very qualified either at the time of his first election to the White House.

We seem to have a history of electing unqualified candidates, and allowing on the job training for the President.

[sheepshead]

and for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTN3mShDZVI

[sheepshead]

5) The RNC doesnt have to try. This guy is anything BUT presidential material.

I tend to agree, but Bush wasn't qualified either in his first presidential campaign, nor was Clinton in his, nor Carter in his. Reagan may have been "presidential" in speech and demeanor, but he wasn't very qualified either at the time of his first election to the White House.

We seem to have a history of electing unqualified candidates, and allowing on the job training for the President.

They were all governors. A few of them good ones, but they all had years of public service and accomplishments to point to. They all loved their country. Obama doesnt deserve the job he has.

[Joemailman]

McCain just doesn't look like a very strong candidate candidate to me. If he was, he would have been able to build a large lead in the polls when the Dems were divided and beating each other up. Now that that is no longer the case, I think McCain will have a hard time staying with Obama.

Of course, anything can happen. Really though, I don't think this election is about McCain. It's about Obama. Americans will either embrace Obama or reject him. If they reject him, McCain will be the President, albeit probably not a very popular one.

[Patler]

They were all governors. A few of them good ones, but they all had years of public service and accomplishments to point to. They all loved their country. Obama doesnt deserve the job he has.

I'm not sure running Georgia or Arkansas offers much in training and experience to be President, nor Texas or California for that matter. Generally, state issues are different from national and international matters. Other than just general political experience, being governor doesn't give much in experience beyond what any business person learns. Obama has 12 years of public service, too; and at least has some exposure to issues of the nation.

As for Obama's love for his country, I am not yet prepared to judge that. Clearly there are questions he must answer, no matter how much he tries to avoid or obscure them.

[sheepshead]

They were all governors. A few of them good ones, but they all had years of public service and accomplishments to point to. They all loved their country. Obama doesnt deserve the job he has.

I'm not sure running Georgia or Arkansas offers much in training and experience to be President, nor Texas or California for that matter. Generally, state issues are different from national and international matters. Other than just general political experience, being governor doesn't give much in experience beyond what any business person learns. Obama has 12 years of public service, too; and at least has some exposure to issues of the nation.

As for Obama's love for his country, I am not yet prepared to judge that. Clearly there are questions he must answer, no matter how much he tries to avoid or obscure them.


Senators dont run or lead or manage anything. Governors have a big job. Maybe a civics lesson is in order.

[Patler]

Please teach me, I am so uninformed.

[sheepshead]

I have neither the time nor inclination.

[Patler]

I have neither the time nor inclination.

Nor the knowledge.

[sheepshead]

Thanks for the lecture and personal attacks. Fits the template.

[Patler]

Thanks for the lecture and personal attacks. Fits the template.

The personal attack started with your comment about my "need for a civics lesson". Everything before that I expressed clearly as my opinion ("I'm not sure...", "I'm not prepared..."), which coincidently enough I also prefaced by stating I generally agreed with you, except for one point ("I tend to agree, but ...").

Until your civics lesson comment I made no direct remark toward you, I just disagreed slightly with one of 5 points you commented on.

And what "template" are you referring to?

[sheepshead]

and before you pull that lever in November, there's this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see this politics thread has brought out the love in the forum. That's my mission, to spread peace and love.


The only stories that I saw this spring about Republican cross-over to Obama, (and they were "endless, I agree) were from the open primary states, with Republicans figuring Obama would be more beatable in the general election than Clinton would be so they voted for Obama.

I never heard a single story about Republicans thinking OBama was more beatable, perhaps that was early in the campaign. After Super Tuesday, when Obama inched ahead, and especially later, most of the story was about Republicans voting Clinton to drag-out the race - Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

What I refer to are the stories about the "Obamacans." I heard many interviews with people saying they are voting Dem for the first time in their life because of Obama, many radio callers put-through on NPR with this view. I agree there may not be many such people, but the media has promoted them with an aura of respectful wonder.

I contrast this with the many stories of Democrats pledging to vote for McCain. These people are characterized either as 1) white male racists in pickup trucks, or 2) shrieking menopausal women in need of psychiatric attention.

[Harlan Huckleby]

2) is just crap

So you have failed to notice the positive spin and protection Obama gets in the media?

Oh that's right, you are exclusively a Fox News , Rush Limbaugh, and "Cracker Today" guy. :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course, anything can happen. Really though, I don't think this election is about McCain. It's about Obama. Americans will either embrace Obama or reject him. If they reject him, McCain will be the President, albeit probably not a very popular one.

I agree the election is about Obama, and it's his to lose. I think you underestimate McCain. And the most devisive issue on the table - Iraq - is resolving.

[Patler]

I never heard a single story about Republicans thinking OBama was more beatable, perhaps that was early in the campaign. After Super Tuesday, when Obama inched ahead, and especially later, most of the story was about Republicans voting Clinton to drag-out the race - Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

What I refer to are the stories about the "Obamacans." I heard many interviews with people saying they are voting Dem for the first time in their life because of Obama, many radio callers put-through on NPR with this view. I agree there may not be many such people, but the media has promoted them with an aura of respectful wonder.

I contrast this with the many stories of Democrats pledging to vote for McCain. These people are characterized either as 1) white male racists in pickup trucks, or 2) shrieking menopausal women in need of psychiatric attention.

Clearly we must listen to different sources! :lol:

Granted, once Obama looked to be the winner, some focus shifted to Clinton to drag it out and let the two bloody each other for as long as possible. However, when it was still iffy, I heard more conservatives (Republicans if you will) hoping to face Obama than Cliinton.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, when it was still iffy, I heard more conservatives (Republicans if you will) hoping to face Obama than Cliinton.

Well, they have their wish, and I expect they are going to get their asses kicked.

I was listening to a conservative talk radio show last night, Bill Cunningham, and he estimates that conservative talk radio reaches a maximum of 25 million people, all shows combined. This is a lot, but not compared to other media, and it's preaching to the choir.

Contrast that with more mainstream media. "The View" discusses politics to a huge, broad (no pun intended) audiance, and they are relentlessly pro-Obama. They give some favorable coverage to McCain, this is not just a liberal-targeted show.

[hoosier]

I never heard a single story about Republicans thinking OBama was more beatable, perhaps that was early in the campaign. After Super Tuesday, when Obama inched ahead, and especially later, most of the story was about Republicans voting Clinton to drag-out the race - Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

What I refer to are the stories about the "Obamacans." I heard many interviews with people saying they are voting Dem for the first time in their life because of Obama, many radio callers put-through on NPR with this view. I agree there may not be many such people, but the media has promoted them with an aura of respectful wonder.

I contrast this with the many stories of Democrats pledging to vote for McCain. These people are characterized either as 1) white male racists in pickup trucks, or 2) shrieking menopausal women in need of psychiatric attention.

Which one of those images best describes you? :lol: In all seriousness, my intuition is that more Democrats will vote for McCain than Republicans for Obama. That may be particularly the case in states like NY and FL, where Jewish voters reject Obama. The number of Obamacans will be relatively small, but there may be large number of ObamaWeCans, or (primarily young) people who Obama has turned onto politics for the first time.

[Joemailman]

Of course, anything can happen. Really though, I don't think this election is about McCain. It's about Obama. Americans will either embrace Obama or reject him. If they reject him, McCain will be the President, albeit probably not a very popular one.

I agree the election is about Obama, and it's his to lose. I think you underestimate McCain. And the most devisive issue on the table - Iraq - is resolving.

Perhaps I am underestimating McCain, but to me he looks a little like Johnny Unitas in a Chargers uniform. Just not what he was 8 years ago. If the Iraq situation resolves itself, that could cut both ways. It would help McCain in that McCain supported the surge and Obama did not. However, if it results in the economy being a bigger issue than Iraq, I think that helps Obama.

[Scott Campbell]

Please teach me, I am so uninformed.


ROFL

[Harlan Huckleby]

The number of Obamacans will be relatively small

I think there will be 7 nation wide. The "Obamacan" story was always a joke. But Obama don't need no stinkin' Republicans.

[Patler]

Contrast that with more mainstream media. "The View" discusses politics to a huge, broad (no pun intended) audiance, and they are relentlessly pro-Obama. They give some favorable coverage to McCain, this is not just a liberal-targeted show.

I think it is a bit too early to decide if the mainstream media (whoever you think embodies it!) will be pro-Obama, pro-McCain, anti-Obama or anti-McCain. Obama and McCain haven't really yet begun to run against each other.

McCain is pretty much an open book. He has been in the national spotlight for years, and there is not much to learn about him that we don't already know. For that reason he is largely ignored right now. Even the Republican primary failed to keep him in the news.

On the other hand, we are just beginning to learn about Obama and who he really is. What is perceived as pro-Obama bias in the media might just be the sources broadcasting what they feel people don't know. So far that is controlled by the Obama camp, so is necessarily pro-Obama. As the campaign heats up, the sources of information on Obama will broaden, and any preceived media bias could change quickly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I hope you are right, Patler, cause I don't want no stinkin' Obama.


As Dan Rather says, "Courage" :lol:

[Patler]

I hope you are right, Patler, cause I don't want no stinkin' Obama.
As Dan Rather says, "Courage" :lol:

I always picked you for a Republican!

[sheepshead]

2) is just crap

So you have failed to notice the positive spin and protection Obama gets in the media?

Oh that's right, you are exclusively a Fox News , Rush Limbaugh, and "Cracker Today" guy. :lol:

sure, i was talking about the money part. Listen if this country turned out in record numbers in 2004 to make sure John Kerry didnt get into the white house, imagine the trouncing this guy is gonna take.

[Scott Campbell]

I think McCain's biggest hurdle will be fighting the Bush hangover. The Dems should easily take the White House this year, though they probably should have beaten GB in the two previous elections, but ended up choking.

[SkinBasket]

"The View" discusses politics to a huge, broad (no pun intended) audiance, and they are relentlessly pro-Obama.

Just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't possibly get any lower...

[Patler]

I think McCain's biggest hurdle will be fighting the Bush hangover. The Dems should easily take the White House this year, though they probably should have beaten GB in the two previous elections, but ended up choking.

In January I thought the Dems would win the Presidency, and it wouldn't matter who their candidate was. Of course, sixteen years ago, I didn't see how Bush-the 1st could possibly lose, especially as the leading Democrats self destructed through the primaries.

I've quit predicting!

[mraynrand]

Obama will lose the election if
1) He opens his Democratic Convention speech with "I'm Reporting for Duty!"
2) He calls Lambeau Field "Lambert Field," obviously confusing it with Lambert airfield in St. Louis, except to all football fans with two licks of sense.
3) He chooses Edwards as his running mate. The Nation might elect the King, but it won't elect the King AND the Duke.

[Patler]

3) He chooses Edwards as his running mate. The Nation might elect the King, but it won't elect the King AND the Duke.

How about if he chooses the Queen? Is a monarchy possible???

[mraynrand]

3) He chooses Edwards as his running mate. The Nation might elect the King, but it won't elect the King AND the Duke.

How about if he chooses the Queen? Is a monarchy possible???

Think Huck Finn.

[Patler]

3) He chooses Edwards as his running mate. The Nation might elect the King, but it won't elect the King AND the Duke.

How about if he chooses the Queen? Is a monarchy possible???

Think Huck Finn.

I think you probably are right.

[Freak Out]

With Oprah as his running "mate" he will be unstoppable.

[Scott Campbell]

With Oprah as his running "mate" he will be unstoppable.



Will Dr. Phil be our Secretary of Defense?

[bobblehead]

I've had good success predicting elections, so here is my take. McCain is getting karma for spending all that time in a vietnam war camp. No way possible he could have beaten Hillary, or nearly any democrat. He not only doesn't inspire the republican base, he turns it off. He only had one chance in hell.

He prayed one night "please God, let the democrats nominate an extreme lefty with almost no experience whatsoever. Make it someone who espouses issues so far left that he makes me look right wing." And as makeup for those prisoner years God granted his prayer.

People are indeed sick of bush, they get sick of anyone after 8 years. The republican congress turned its base off as badly as mccain did. Nancy Pelosi took over the house and hasn't looked radical compared to the republicans in it before.

No frickin way a moderate republican should have a chance in this election. But as usual I underestimate the left. After putting up a massachusets liberal and handing bush a second term while the war was going badly they managed to go even further left while the war is going well.

Result....McCain by a better margin than bush won either election. Popular vote will be closer because of the heavy population centers, but the US map will be blood red when broken down by county. Dems will still gain a few seats in the senate and a few in the house, that is much less predictable because mccain definately has no coattails.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

[bobblehead]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

That passion is called fed up with current situation, it can be quashed in a hurry when his true colors show. It is also passion of young americans who historically are not a reliable voting block.

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

[texaspackerbacker]

2) is just crap

So you have failed to notice the positive spin and protection Obama gets in the media?

Oh that's right, you are exclusively a Fox News , Rush Limbaugh, and "Cracker Today" guy. :lol:

I keep forgetting, Harlan, you and I are on the same side--with regard to the election.

You presented a good well thought out case. Permit me to state several reasons why I'm not so sure you are correct:

1. Even though Obama has "all that money", what is he gonna say? The key to his success is having LESS known about him, not MORE. Face it, the guy is an all out left wing extremist. Democrat voters--actually around half of them were receptive to that --or just didn't care in the primaries. Swing voters and undecideds--if they are thinking people at all--and many are, will be turned off in greater and greater numbers when the truth comes out about Obama's position on the issues.

2. You are totally correct about the media doing everything it can for Obama and for the left in general. This is something our side will have to fix in the future. For this election, we just have to live with it and survive. That's where McCain comes in. I am completely turned off by about 25% of what he stands for and lukewarm about 50% or so more. But in an electorate that has been poisoned by the media against the "Republican brand", he has the best chance to overcome the reality of media bias.

3, Look at the electoral vote map. About 3/4 or more of the states are what they are, and neither candidate is going to make a dent in the other guy's territory. The states that are "in play", however, tend to favor McCain greatly IMO. Florida, for example, is an absolute must for McCain, and he WILL win--for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the Dem primary debacle. Michigan, IMO, is a must for Obama, and McCain has a good chance there--also not the least reason being the Dem primary debacle. They are talking about Obama cutting into Republican territory in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada--fat chance of that. McCain, on the other hand, could take West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and maybe even Minnesota, not to mention Michigan. It may all come down to Ohio--which McCain wouldn't even need if he holds those Republican states and takes 2 or 3 of the usually Dem states. And he should win Ohio.


This far out from the last two elections, it looked strongly in favor of Gore and Kerry. Even royal losers like Dukakis had leads in the early summer.

That is not just accident or coincidence. The media--the horribly leftirt media rules the day early on. However, the closer you get to the election, the more ads, debates, etc. reduce the effect of media bias and give the electorate an unfiltered picture of what the candidates are for and against. That hurt Gore; That killed Kerry; And I really think it will absolutely annihilate Obama--because the bottom line here is:

Obama is an all out extremist--completely out of tune with the views and values of the American people.

[Harlan Huckleby]

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

most people will not vote based on these issues. The undecided voters will vote on the economy, if they vote on any issue at all. Most undecideds will vote on who they like the best.

[sheepshead]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

I wont compare the two men, I will reiterate my belief in the system after the 2004 election. I was so concerned that I went to Wisconsin(a swing state) for several nights and worked on GWB's campaign. The turnout for Bush restored my faith in the system and this country really. This guy is a more glaring example. The battle hasnt even begun because Hillary could only go so far in policy criticism and lack of resume because she's the same type of candidate. Also, there are major voting blocks that will not under any circumstances, no matter how much money he spends, vote for him. 45-46 state McCain landslide.

p.s. I was surprised Bush lost. He was 10-1 ahead in calls I made. Lots of "lost ballets" up there for that one as it turned out. McCain should win Wisconsin this time around.

[Harlan Huckleby]

will be turned off in greater and greater numbers when the truth comes out about Obama's position on the issues.

No truths are going to come out about issues. His voting record is very short. And his positions are vague, carefully calibrated.

The election will turn on the character of BO. I think the Repubs will be able to rough him up some, but not enough.

[texaspackerbacker]

will be turned off in greater and greater numbers when the truth comes out about Obama's position on the issues.

No truths are going to come out about issues. His voting record is very short. And his positions are vague, carefully calibrated.

The election will turn on the character of BO. I think the Repubs will be able to rough him up some, but not enough.

Harlan, he can't hide forever. McCain in debates, as well as in ads will spell out Obama's horrendous tax and spend agenda; Obama himself, will probably expose his healthcare takeover plan--which amounts to warmed over Hillary-care; His commitment to cutting and running in the face of victory in Iraq will be pointed out more and more; His voting record on security, his statements about unconditional negotiating with lunatic enemies, and his is following of the dangerous Kerry approach to preventing terrorism at home. Exposure of Obama's positions on ALL of those things and a good deal more will erode his support significantly.

And even if your estimate that Obama's "character" or lack of it will be a major factor, he loses there too. If all that is known is his associates--and maybe his wife, then those assocaites--and wife--serve inordinately to define Obama himself. That might be unfair to some people, but in Obama's case, I think he really IS very similar to Wright, Ayres, Pflaggert, Michelle, etc.

[bobblehead]

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

most people will not vote based on these issues. The undecided voters will vote on the economy, if they vote on any issue at all. Most undecideds will vote on who they like the best.

was just my opinion that mccain will edge him out...time will tell if I'm right or if you are...nice thing about this thread, we will have a conclusion as to who was right.

[cpk1994]

I see this politics thread has brought out the love in the forum. That's my mission, to spread peace and love.


The only stories that I saw this spring about Republican cross-over to Obama, (and they were "endless, I agree) were from the open primary states, with Republicans figuring Obama would be more beatable in the general election than Clinton would be so they voted for Obama.

I never heard a single story about Republicans thinking OBama was more beatable, perhaps that was early in the campaign. After Super Tuesday, when Obama inched ahead, and especially later, most of the story was about Republicans voting Clinton to drag-out the race - Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

What I refer to are the stories about the "Obamacans." I heard many interviews with people saying they are voting Dem for the first time in their life because of Obama, many radio callers put-through on NPR with this view. I agree there may not be many such people, but the media has promoted them with an aura of respectful wonder.

I contrast this with the many stories of Democrats pledging to vote for McCain. These people are characterized either as 1) white male racists in pickup trucks, or 2) shrieking menopausal women in need of psychiatric attention.The fact that you got your information from NPR blows up that theory before it starts. NPR is left wing and of course they are going to put through Republicans that expressed interest in voting for Obama. Im sorry but NPR has no credibility and niether does your theory.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The fact that you got your information from NPR blows up that theory before it starts. NPR is left wing and of course they are going to put through Republicans that expressed interest in voting for Obama. Im sorry but NPR has no credibility and niether does your theory.

1994, you are locked in combative mode and your thinking is foggy.

I did not advance a theory, just reported what I read and saw in mainstream and left-leaning media. NPR's credibility is irrelevant, the fact is they reach a broad audience. I gave them as one example, but I observed these slants in many places.

You've indicated that you only listen to media sources that you agree with. Fine. But then you ought to avoid discussions about which you are ignorant.

[mraynrand]

You (Harlan) presented a good well thought out case.

What gives? Even when I disagree with him in recent days, Harlan seems amazingly coherent.

[CaliforniaCheez]

No Commie from Chicago is going to win the election.

[bobblehead]

You (Harlan) presented a good well thought out case.

What gives? Even when I disagree with him in recent days, Harlan seems amazingly coherent.

I would like to believe his exchanges with me has made him think more clearly. Ok, I'm arrogant rat, but it makes me feel good anyway.

[swede]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

That passion is called fed up with current situation, it can be quashed in a hurry when his true colors show. It is also passion of young americans who historically are not a reliable voting block.

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

Harlan is absolutely right. There will be no quashing. The media fix is in.

Obama is the chosen one. The Republicans will trot out another bad candidate in '12 and lose to Barry again despite foreign policy debacles and a series of trashy scandals by the Obama adminstration.

After that, twenty years of conservative Presidents duking it out with Chief Justice Dan Abrams and the other four Obama Supreme Court Justices, Keith Obermann, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinnie, and Kwami Kilpatrick.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Swede, your sarcasm dripped down my computer screen and shorted-out my keyboard.

I have no idea how Obama will perform as a president. But as you can see in his eyes, he is a man of destiny. I urge you to be very afraid.

http://harryallen.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rollingobama.jpg

[Freak Out]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

That passion is called fed up with current situation, it can be quashed in a hurry when his true colors show. It is also passion of young americans who historically are not a reliable voting block.

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

Harlan is absolutely right. There will be no quashing. The media fix is in.

Obama is the chosen one. The Republicans will trot out another bad candidate in '12 and lose to Barry again despite foreign policy debacles and a series of trashy scandals by the Obama adminstration.

After that, twenty years of conservative Presidents duking it out with Chief Justice Dan Abrams and the other four Obama Supreme Court Justices, Keith Obermann, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinnie, and Kwami Kilpatrick.

Scandinavian humor. :lol:

[mraynrand]

Swede, your sarcasm dripped down my computer screen and shorted-out my keyboard.

I have no idea how Obama will perform as a president. But as you can see in his eyes, he is a man of destiny. I urge you to be very afraid.

http://harryallen.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rollingobama.jpg

Not a blemish on the Man! "A New Hope?" May the Force be with you Mr. Obama!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

That passion is called fed up with current situation, it can be quashed in a hurry when his true colors show. It is also passion of young americans who historically are not a reliable voting block.

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

Harlan is absolutely right. There will be no quashing. The media fix is in.

Obama is the chosen one. The Republicans will trot out another bad candidate in '12 and lose to Barry again despite foreign policy debacles and a series of trashy scandals by the Obama adminstration.

After that, twenty years of conservative Presidents duking it out with Chief Justice Dan Abrams and the other four Obama Supreme Court Justices, Keith Obermann, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinnie, and Kwami Kilpatrick.

Scandinavian humor. :lol:

Is that what is was? I say if that is scandy humor..leave humor to the jews and the blacks...they are funny.

Scandys should stick to what they do best...making cheap modern furniture. And, pickling herring.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is that what is was? I say if that is scandy humor..leave humor to the jews and the blacks...they are funny.

Scandys should stick to what they do best...making cheap modern furniture. And, pickling herring.


:lol: Beautiful!!! That swedish asshole has needed his comeuppance for far too long.

[swede]

Laugh all you want Tyrone, but all Sweden need do is drop the merest hint of a threat of a possibility of a pickled herring embargo and other nations fall right into line...always have, always will. Even the Nazis backed off and were never able to fully subdue Sweden, and the untold story is that King Olaf had sent Hitler a package of headless pickled herring--a pretty gift with undertones of a message couched in Aryan mythological symbolism that even that coarse peasant boy Adolf was able to understand."Fynd eder kraft i sill fiske!" or "Find your strength in pickled herring!" my grandmother always liked to say.

Crackhead nation would be wise to emulate Sweden's judicious use of its economic might.

btw, Sweden supports direct negotiations with Obama without preconditions.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Laugh all you want Tyrone, but all Sweden need do is drop the merest hint of a threat of a possibility of a pickled herring embargo and other nations fall right into line...always have, always will. Even the Nazis backed off and were never able to fully subdue Sweden, and the untold story is that King Olaf had sent Hitler a package of headless pickled herring--a pretty gift with undertones of a message couched in Aryan mythological symbolism that even that coarse peasant boy Adolf was able to understand."Fynd eder kraft i sill fiske!" or "Find your strength in pickled herring!" my grandmother always liked to say.

Crackhead nation would be wise to emulate Sweden's judicious use of its economic might.

btw, Sweden supports direct negotiations with Obama without preconditions.

Don't kid yourself. Step outta line and we'll start eating kippers. Supertramp already whetted our appetite for them...savvy marketers are waiting for a Swedish misstep.

Rumors are already swirling that Obama has much love for swedish pop. He is afraid of saying whether he prefers Ace of Base, Roxette, or Abba best...you know, standard liberal...afraid to be pinned down on important issues.

This is much to Michelle's consternation as she loves to head bang to Swedish Death Metal....favors Carnage and Nihilist.

[sheepshead]

the passion for Obama is immense and intense. Can't compare him to John Kerry.

Obama's negatives with the Rev, etc. would have squashed an ordinary mortal by now.

That passion is called fed up with current situation, it can be quashed in a hurry when his true colors show. It is also passion of young americans who historically are not a reliable voting block.

how many people who say they support obama really know his positions on taxes...crime....regulatory burden? They know he is smooth and says hope and change a lot.

Harlan is absolutely right. There will be no quashing. The media fix is in.

Obama is the chosen one. The Republicans will trot out another bad candidate in '12 and lose to Barry again despite foreign policy debacles and a series of trashy scandals by the Obama adminstration.

After that, twenty years of conservative Presidents duking it out with Chief Justice Dan Abrams and the other four Obama Supreme Court Justices, Keith Obermann, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinnie, and Kwami Kilpatrick.


Thanks for the laughs!

(not far from the truth should it come to pass)

[DonHutson]

3) Obama is going to project as a much more appealing figure than an aging John McCain. A certain percentage of the population is going to vote completely on personality.

DING, DING, DING... there's your winner.

It's sad but true, but this is ALL that matters in the fall election. Remove everything else from the equation and the winner in November in the presidential election is always the candidate with the more appealing personality.

Bush v. Kerry - say what you will about Bush, but I'd rather catch a ballgame with him than that cadaverous pompoid Kerry.

Bush v. Gore - Mr. Roboto came as close as anyone to breaking the trend, but Bush's regular doofus down the street appeal carried the day.

Clinton v. Dole - c'mon, who's more fun than Bill? Certainly not grumpy ol' Grandpa Depends

Clinton v. Bush - no contest on the personality front.

Bush v. Dukakis - Bush Sr. is as bland and whitebread as they come, but he's Frank Sinatra compared to Michael Dukakis

Reagan v. Mondale - are you kidding?

Reagan v. Carter - Lovable Gipper beats drawling Mr. Peanut anyday.

Carter v. Ford - Carter doesn't win too many of these personality battles, but he beats Ford. This election almost shouldn't count because there's no way a Republican wins the first election after Watergate.

That's far enough to make my point I think. Why is this the case? Lots of people vote for president in November who don't vote for anything else. They put a few minutes worth of thought into it and pick the person they think they'll be willing to see on TV for the next four years.

This trend doesn't hold true in the primaries. Fewer voters means a higher percentage of voters who vote based on something important. The added voters in November are less in tune, and are more likely to vote superficially.

So Harlan is right. Obama is a lock.

[bobblehead]

nope, its usually a referendum on the republican party going back to nixon. Mccain would have no chance in hell based on that alone, but the dems managed to somehow make him competitive and piss off their own base.

Carter...first pres after watergate.

reagan...a strong conservative vs. a big time liberal.

reagan mondale....reagan was wildly popular and fixed a damaged economy.

bush1...living on reagans coattails.

clinton bush...bush1 promised no new taxes and raised them

clinton dole...gingrich fought hard for consevative values, shutting down the gov't during the fight, dole did an end around snake in the grass move and worked out a deal with cliinton to re-open it....snake republican got smoked.

Bush Gore...tight race as bush1 left GW fighting uphill, but in the end taxcuts and conservative values beat mr. ozone.

bush kerry...again, bush stayed true to conservative values on most issues, and despite overspending and Med D managed to beat a massachusettes liberal.

Based on all this it should be the democrat in a landslide, but they put up the most liberal senator less than 3 years removed from the illinois state legislature. He makes mccain look conservative, and the nation will go with mccain for 4 years til he raises taxes and gets smoke by nearly any democrat in '12.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues--most of the time--despite the propaganda put out by the leftist mainstream nedia.

If McCain is still healthy and motivated in 2012, he should be a shoo-in, though, despite being horrendously off on global warming and a little bit on the wrong/liberal side of a few other issues.

This year should be the Dems' high water mark. The charismatic crap of Obama will be seen through in time by the electorate. In 2012, all the Dems will have is stale BO and poorly aged Hillary. Furthermore, by that time, hopefully the forces of good will have found a way to better counter the sick anti-American demagoguery of the media that has made this SEEM to be a Dem/lib year.

[bobblehead]

Under my theory tex, he has no shot in hell at re-election. He only has a shot now because the left handicapped themselves in a huge way. If it were hillary mccain, hillary would hand him his ass.

In 4 years even you will be pissed at mccain, I gaurantee it, he will embrace global warming cap and trade, open the borders and raise taxes, this is consistent with who he is. I'm not even positive he wins this time, I just think Obama is such a weak candidate that we may overcome the referendum on republicans for exactly ONE election. We also might not.

[texaspackerbacker]

That--the 2012 thing--is the only part of your earlier post I disagreed with.

First of all, the war and security against terrorism at home, not necessarily in that order, are the top issues. Assuming he is elected, he should continue the highly successful policies on those issues. Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

I think or at least hope that McCain will turn out to be our side's version of Bill Clinton--who got elected by giving the false impression he was moderately conservative. McCain is doing what is necessary to get elected--SOUNDING disgustingly liberal on some issues. I just bet he stabs 'em in the back, though. Even on the horrendous global warming thing, I think he finds some excuse not to let it happen or to water it down extremely, then snaps back a la Clinton to give the libs and moderates hope on that and other things again in the '12 campaign, only to double cross them again.

Besides, it takes something really drastic to beat an incumbent out of a second term.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

No, Harlan. Congress gets elected on incumbency, local issues, pork, gerrymandering, name recognition, in approximately that order, and national issues maybe 6th on the list.

Presidential debates and ads provide the COMPARISON necessary for people to overcome the horrendous left-media bias--thus giving us a series of Republicans interrupted only by the Slickster, who managed to give the FALSE IMPRESSION of being moderately conservative.

The media has managed to sell people on thinking the economy is much worse than it is. That, of course, favors the Dems. Health care is one of those issues that when the truth is known, as it will be through ads and debates, that Dem/lib advantage evaporates.

[Zool]

And they win again by divide and conquer. If they keep the masses arguing amongst themselves you can skate by and do whatever they want.

Lets hear it for the 2%!

[bobblehead]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.



He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

[hoosier]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.



He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

[swede]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

No, Harlan. Congress gets elected on incumbency, local issues, pork, gerrymandering, name recognition, in approximately that order, and national issues maybe 6th on the list.

Presidential debates and ads provide the COMPARISON necessary for people to overcome the horrendous left-media bias--thus giving us a series of Republicans interrupted only by the Slickster, who managed to give the FALSE IMPRESSION of being moderately conservative.

The media has managed to sell people on thinking the economy is much worse than it is. That, of course, favors the Dems. Health care is one of those issues that when the truth is known, as it will be through ads and debates, that Dem/lib advantage evaporates.

Every 1% of the independent vote McCain picks up compared to a typical repub is washed out by the loss of conservative voters staying at home sulking over CNN/Starbucks polls that will have consistently predicted an Obama landslide for months.

Every Republican that died of old age since 2004 has been replaced by an 18-22 year old shit-for-brains voter.

Relax, Tex. Breathe in and out with me. Bush is a good man that consistently presents as a boob in public and I have grown weary of defending him. It will be our turn to have fun loathing the next President.

[bobblehead]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.



He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

My opinion based on his voting record is the appeasement. I won't get into the "have mores" because this thread isn't about that. He is somewhat of a social conservative with a somewhat liberal fiscal stance in recent history (90-present). He wants to address waste in the 25% of the budget that is open, but not at all in the 75% that is locked in.

Oh hell, I gotta address it. He is trying to appease those of us who understand that raising taxes has a deflationary effect on the economy and when that happens the "have mores" are gonna take it out on all of us. I don't even think he understands it, but he does understand that the republican base by and large wants tax cuts.

Ya know, I hate those "have mores". Those fuckers do nothing but create/innovate to make our lives easier and more comfortable and then those bastards wanna be paid. Fuck them, I say we run them out of society and we all live in abject poverty....that'll show them pricks.

Great Heinlen quote if I remember it correctly:

"Throughout history mankind has lived in abject poverty except for those occasions when a few exceptional people brought them out into eras of prosperity at which time those individuals were labeled greedy and evil and driven from society and then man reverted back to his normal state of abject poverty."

[texaspackerbacker]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.



He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say, Hoosier, but you said it first.

McCain is walking a tight rope--trying his damnedest to NOT do exactly what Swede said: lose conservative votes by placating moderate liberals--or is it lose moderate liberal votes by placating conservatives?

Somebody once said, you can't have it both ways. Well, McCain sure as hell is trying--and he has the precedent of Bill Clinton to follow.

Ultimately, somebody is gonna feel the sting on this--or maybe a series of stings to each side on an issue by issue basis. My opinion--based on the fact that I'm generally an optimist, is that McCain is closer to genuinely conservative--conning the libs--just like Clinton got away with conning a lot of moderate conservatives--twice.

When the alternative is the horribly dangerous and deleterious policies of Obama, we about have to take our chances on McCain.

[hoosier]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.



He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say, Hoosier, but you said it first.

McCain is walking a tight rope--trying his damnedest to NOT do exactly what Swede said: lose conservative votes by placating moderate liberals--or is it lose moderate liberal votes by placating conservatives?

Somebody once said, you can't have it both ways. Well, McCain sure as hell is trying--and he has the precedent of Bill Clinton to follow. .

It's funny, the Right is maintaining that Clinton was a liberal in conservative's clothing, and the Left continues to feel that Clinton was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat (on issues such as free trade, welfare, capital punishment). My theory was always that what really pissed the Right off about Clinton was that he stole all of their thunder and made it impossible for them to deploy their tradition wedge issues and rhetoric.


Ultimately, somebody is gonna feel the sting on this--or maybe a series of stings to each side on an issue by issue basis. My opinion--based on the fact that I'm generally an optimist, is that McCain is closer to genuinely conservative--conning the libs--just like Clinton got away with conning a lot of moderate conservatives--twice..

I agree with Tex here, McCain's "maverick" image is--and maybe has always been--a charade. If that makes you an optimist, I suppose it makes me a pessimist.
:P

[bobblehead]

I think Clinton was the ultimate politician chameleon who mirrored what people wanted.

As a candidate he ran to the right, promising middle class tax cuts.

As a president with a democratic congress he raised taxes on everyone, increased spending and claimed "now that I am president and see all the information the deficit is far worse than I thought and as such I have to raise taxes".

As a president with a republican congress he dramatically scaled back the spending increases in the budget and signed the same wefare reform he vetoed earlier. This is why I wanted Hillary, I think she actually understands economics and as president she would want to secure re-election and her legacy and enact common sense solutions...because she is a power hungry maniac far before she is a democrat. (er..I meant politician first)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with Tex here, McCain's "maverick" image is--and maybe has always been--a charade. If that makes you an optimist, I suppose it makes me a pessimist.
:P


??? McCain co-sponsored a campaing finance bill with Russ Feingold. He co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy. He was the first politician of either party to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. He pushed for intervention in Bosnia when the Republican Party wanted to avert their eyes. McCain has spoken against ethanol and farm subsidies.

Have you forgotten that John Kerry pursued McCain as a running mate in 2004?

Time and again McCain has shown an independent spirit. Do you think that Limbaugh's 10 year war against him was part of the charade?

Now that he is running for president, the left is recasting McCain as an establishment republican. Bush III. I guess many distortions will be made in the next 6 months from all sides.

[bobblehead]

I agree with Tex here, McCain's "maverick" image is--and maybe has always been--a charade. If that makes you an optimist, I suppose it makes me a pessimist.
:P


??? McCain co-sponsored a campaing finance bill with Russ Feingold. He co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy. He was the first politician of either party to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. He pushed for intervention in Bosnia when the Republican Party wanted to avert their eyes. McCain has spoken against ethanol and farm subsidies.

Have you forgotten that John Kerry pursued McCain as a running mate in 2004?

Time and again McCain has shown an independent spirit. Do you think that Limbaugh's 10 year war against him was part of the charade?

Now that he is running for president, the left is recasting McCain as an establishment republican. Bush III. I guess many distortions will be made in the next 6 months from all sides.

Well, at least he was on the correct side of the issue with rumsfeld and ethanol. You have forgotten his recent jumping in bed with cap and trade taxes, and the Lieberman bill that will raise gas prices more. You also didn't mention him voting against the bush tax cuts.

The man is more liberal than Hillary if you aren't counting social issues. And since I think social issues are moot in a bankrupt society, I don't count them much....plus judges tend to get things right most of the time when it comes to equal rights.

[hoosier]

I agree with Tex here, McCain's "maverick" image is--and maybe has always been--a charade. If that makes you an optimist, I suppose it makes me a pessimist.
:P


??? McCain co-sponsored a campaing finance bill with Russ Feingold. He co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy. He was the first politician of either party to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. He pushed for intervention in Bosnia when the Republican Party wanted to avert their eyes. McCain has spoken against ethanol and farm subsidies.

Have you forgotten that John Kerry pursued McCain as a running mate in 2004?

Time and again McCain has shown an independent spirit. Do you think that Limbaugh's 10 year war against him was part of the charade?

Now that he is running for president, the left is recasting McCain as an establishment republican. Bush III. I guess many distortions will be made in the next 6 months from all sides.

Yeah, and way back when he also derided Bush's tax cut as catering to the "have mores"...and now he says he wants to make those cuts permanent. What's with that? Did he have a sudden epiphany? My read is that McCain has played the "maverick" image to his political benefit when it has suited him. He may well have an "independent" tendency, but on many of the issues that matter to me (economics, foreign policy, domestic spying) he's much closer to the Right than to the center. The only exception is with use of torture...unless he's begun to shift closer to Bush on that as well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

but on many of the issues that matter to me (economics, foreign policy, domestic spying) he's much closer to the Right than to the center. The only exception is

You're right that he is overall conservative, especially economically. I don't care how you label him, he's been right on foreign policy, I trust his judgement. "The only exception" - BS. There have been many cases where he has diverted from mainstream.

If Dems had a credible candidate I would not vote for McCain because of his conservative economic positions.

[bobblehead]

but on many of the issues that matter to me (economics, foreign policy, domestic spying) he's much closer to the Right than to the center. The only exception is

You're right that he is overall conservative, especially economically. I don't care how you label him, he's been right on foreign policy, I trust his judgement. "The only exception" - BS. There have been many cases where he has diverted from mainstream.

If Dems had a credible candidate I would not vote for McCain because of his conservative economic positions.

Cap and trade, the lieberman gas tax, no drilling in anwar and voting against tax cuts....where is he conservative economically exactly, If you can show me this I may have to vote for him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cap and trade, the lieberman gas tax, no drilling in anwar and voting against tax cuts....where is he conservative economically exactly, If you can show me this I may have to vote for him.

How can anybody talk about "tax cuts" in the middle of a war?

And I've seen no argument that drilling in Anwar is worth the damage.

I don't think you should vote for McCain. Bob Barr is your man this election cycle.

McCain is a fiscal conservative. Why do you reckon he stood up against ag subsidies?

[bobblehead]

Cap and trade, the lieberman gas tax, no drilling in anwar and voting against tax cuts....where is he conservative economically exactly, If you can show me this I may have to vote for him.

How can anybody talk about "tax cuts" in the middle of a war?

And I've seen no argument that drilling in Anwar is worth the damage.

I don't think you should vote for McCain. Bob Barr is your man this election cycle.

McCain is a fiscal conservative. Why do you reckon he stood up against ag subsidies?

I am voting for Bob Barr, I would have voted for tancredo or thompson, MAYBE romney. Duncan Hunter for sure.

I can talk abou tax cuts at a time of war because it is INDISPUTABLE that high taxes stifles the economy. You can dispute that all you want, but any economic model run on any supercomputer I have ever seen supports it as well as history.

I have seen no arguement that drilling in anwar will actually DO any damage. But sending a message to the middle east if they are gonna gouge us we are gonna explore and drill could do wonders for THEIR output.

Mccain is a fiscal conservative on exactly TWO issues. Ag subsidies and pork spending. That gets kinda outweighed when you are in line with carbon taxes. (especially when there is no credible evidence of man made global warming no matter how much al gore wants to declare the debate over....unless he means its over and he has lost) and vote against the bush tax cuts. (yes, being for low taxes is a fiscally conservative platform)

Actually let me address the anwar thing once more...You don't think energy independence and keeping oil dollars here is worth it. Do you realize that the recession we are entering is 90% due to oil prices? Do you realize with drilling technologies now we can use the equivalent of a postage stamps worth of land on a football field and get all the oil out of anwar?

What part of the poor being crushed by gas prices is hard to understand? You guys claim all this compassion for the little guy, well they are the ones being destroyed by $4 gas.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually let me address the anwar thing once more...You don't think energy independence and keeping oil dollars here is worth it.

The term "energy independence" is a giant deception. Unless you are talking about a revolution in energy policy, a radical shift to different technologies.

THE OIL MARKET IS A GLOBAL MARKET. Unless you plan on sucking enough oil out of Anbar to affect global markets, you accomplish very little, oil prices are unaffected. If the choice is to suck oil out of the sands of Saudi Arabia or the wilderness of Alaska, I say we owe it to future generations to pass-on some wilderness.

There are some natonal security advantages to having a source of oil on our soil. Plenty of countries are succeeding without native oil resources.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am voting for Bob Barr, I would have voted for tancredo or thompson, MAYBE romney. Duncan Hunter for sure .

These people are idealogues who operate on the fringes of the mainstream. I'd say were in the equivalent of Dennis Kusinich territory on the left.

[bobblehead]

I am voting for Bob Barr, I would have voted for tancredo or thompson, MAYBE romney. Duncan Hunter for sure .

These people are idealogues who operate on the fringes of the mainstream. I'd say were in the equivalent of Dennis Kusinich territory on the left.

Not Fred Thompson, and definately not Romney.

I'll concede the point on energy independence, that is a much bigger issue than anwar, but anwar could be one step in that direction along WITH a national innitiative.

The global market isn't THAT much shy of demand, but that marginal amount is fueling the prices. Drilling in anwar would help, also to sell our oil elsewhere means we have to ship it, meaning we would need to get a certain % more than we would get at home.

I'm all for clean energy, and I'm all for renewable energy, but only nuclear is there technology wise at this point. We need to establish independence, work towards clean, and then towards renewable. Right now we are working towards $5 gas.

[Tarlam!]

I just wanted to chip in by saying the debate you guys have raging here is extremely educational for me and I want to say a big Thank You.

The other political threads are good to, but this one just makes my head spin. I am amazed by your detailled knowledge. Not many Germans could debate their politicians pros and cons like you folk can.

Again, thank you for the education.

[texaspackerbacker]

I am voting for Bob Barr, I would have voted for tancredo or thompson, MAYBE romney. Duncan Hunter for sure .

These people are idealogues who operate on the fringes of the mainstream. I'd say were in the equivalent of Dennis Kusinich territory on the left.

Not to keep hammering away on the MEDIA thing, but that Harlan would post something as incredibly wrongheaded as that PROVES AGAIN the pervasiveness of the leftist crap the mainstream media saturates people with. People whose agenda is merely to keep America dominant, to keep and preserve our wonderful oomfortable and prosperous way of life--not to mention our rights and freedoms. THESE politicians--the ones Bobblehead mentioned and others--are labeled by the media as EXTREME, while the true extremists, not just loons like Kucinich, but Obama himself and a bunch of others like him--who want to tear America down, make us more like the rest of the world, force Americans to settle for less, etc., THOSE PEOPLE are portrayed by the sick leftist-dominated mainstream media as NOT extreme.

Long before this Russert thing came up, I was sayiing that the REAL VILLAINS in this country are the media--which poisons the electorate.

The Dem/lib politicians are what they are--leftist extremists, but as politicians, that's pretty much a known factor. The media, on the other hand, feigns objectivity, and is subtly effective enough to con a helluva lot of people.

Harlan's little line above is just the latest example in this forum.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dem/lib politicians are what they are--leftist extremists, but as politicians, that's pretty much a known factor. The media, on the other hand, feigns objectivity, and is subtly effective enough to con a helluva lot of people.

Harlan's little line above is just the latest example in this forum.

"Extreme" is always relative to where you are sitting. But there are some objective measures to look at. Who do you think has more supporters and admirerers, Dennis Kusinich or Bob Barr? Dennis Kusinich or Duncan Hunter?

And you call OBama an extremist, but his views fall in with the majority of Americans. For instance, most Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq. Maybe his true views are radical, he has so little public record that it is impossible to say, but that is pure speculation.

You seem to think that being on the far right edge of the Republican Party is "mainstream."

Nothing wrong with Kusinich or Barr. They aren't loons, about half of their views will sell with the majority.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually let me address the anwar thing once more...You don't think energy independence and keeping oil dollars here is worth it. Do you realize that the recession we are entering is 90% due to oil prices? Do you realize with drilling technologies now we can use the equivalent of a postage stamps worth of land on a football field and get all the oil out of anwar?

I'm not sure how much damage that drilling does. I don't trust your information that damage is negligible. It would interesting to see a debate between KNOWLEDGABLE people, I would be open minded to reconsidering.

You made a point earlier about American dollars leaving the country to purchase oil. I don't see that as a high priority, lots of countries (japan, china, etc.) purchase natural resources outside their borders. Why rip-up our own dwindling natural enivironment? The deserts of the Middle East seem like an ideal place to finish off this oil phase of history.

If drilling in Anwar could be a SIGNIFICANT part of a long-term solution, then I would say go for it. But it doesn't meet that threshold, not even close. And even as a short-term help on prices I doubt it will help much at all.

We need new nuclear power plants, and lots of um. And electric cars for 80% of our road travel. And investment in other technologies - solar, wind, hydrogen etc.

[Joemailman]

RealClearPolitics has an electoral map showing states leaning/favoring Obama, leaning/favoring MCCain, and tossups. The good news for Obama is that he would need to get only about 30% of the electoral votes from the tossup states to win. The good news for McCain is that most of the tossup states are states that have gone to Bush in the last 2 elections.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

[bobblehead]

Actually let me address the anwar thing once more...You don't think energy independence and keeping oil dollars here is worth it. Do you realize that the recession we are entering is 90% due to oil prices? Do you realize with drilling technologies now we can use the equivalent of a postage stamps worth of land on a football field and get all the oil out of anwar?

I'm not sure how much damage that drilling does. I don't trust your information that damage is negligible. It would interesting to see a debate between KNOWLEDGABLE people, I would be open minded to reconsidering.

You made a point earlier about American dollars leaving the country to purchase oil. I don't see that as a high priority, lots of countries (japan, china, etc.) purchase natural resources outside their borders. Why rip-up our own dwindling natural enivironment? The deserts of the Middle East seem like an ideal place to finish off this oil phase of history.

If drilling in Anwar could be a SIGNIFICANT part of a long-term solution, then I would say go for it. But it doesn't meet that threshold, not even close. And even as a short-term help on prices I doubt it will help much at all.

We need new nuclear power plants, and lots of um. And electric cars for 80% of our road travel. And investment in other technologies - solar, wind, hydrogen etc.

I'm not going to claim this is my area of expertise, but i can tell you one thing for certain. Katrina buried new orleans, but did not wipe out one single oil platform....that tells me they are pretty safe and clean. I'll try and do a little research and see if I can convince you.

Incidentally, I know you are with me on nuclear, but I want to say few things. If al gore believed half the doomsday crap he spews we would be pumping up nuclear power plants by the hundreds. You know how many people died from coal mining last year? how about nuclear in the last 20 years...case closed in my book.

edit: I didn't read your post thouroughly, my bad. I think the economic damage and job loss due to ever increasing oil is VERY damaging to this country. Anwar isn't significant long term, but we have to make it to the long term without another great depression. the great depression wasn't significant long term either, but tell that to your grandma. The desert would be fine to finish off this phase in history...except when they realize this is the last hurrah and they know they can limit supply and move a ton of capital to their country during that phase.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually let me address the anwar thing once more...You don't think energy independence and keeping oil dollars here is worth it. Do you realize that the recession we are entering is 90% due to oil prices? Do you realize with drilling technologies now we can use the equivalent of a postage stamps worth of land on a football field and get all the oil out of anwar?

I'm not sure how much damage that drilling does. I don't trust your information that damage is negligible. It would interesting to see a debate between KNOWLEDGABLE people, I would be open minded to reconsidering.

If it's anything like the drilling in the Badlands, the damage would be negligible. There can be a happy medium, but most go with the knee jerk, emotional reaction.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Dem/lib politicians are what they are--leftist extremists, but as politicians, that's pretty much a known factor. The media, on the other hand, feigns objectivity, and is subtly effective enough to con a helluva lot of people.

Harlan's little line above is just the latest example in this forum.

"Extreme" is always relative to where you are sitting. But there are some objective measures to look at. Who do you think has more supporters and admirerers, Dennis Kusinich or Bob Barr? Dennis Kusinich or Duncan Hunter?

And you call OBama an extremist, but his views fall in with the majority of Americans. For instance, most Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq. Maybe his true views are radical, he has so little public record that it is impossible to say, but that is pure speculation.

You seem to think that being on the far right edge of the Republican Party is "mainstream."

Nothing wrong with Kusinich or Barr. They aren't loons, about half of their views will sell with the majority.

Harlan, this is a CLASSIC example of circular logic. Obama is somehow NOT an extremist, you claim, despite his horribly extremist stated intentions for this country. Why? Because he is up or very near it in the polls. The whole point is the polls--and how the subtle media assholes so effectively con so many--including you--to NOT view Obama and others who want to CHANGE our wonderful way of life as EXTREMIST, and to somehow view Hunter, Tancredo, Thompson, Romney, all those Republicans aced out by combinations of media negativity and media inattention--politicians who just want to keep and preserve the excellence of America that we ALL benefit from--as extremist.

As for drilling in ANWAR, etc., following the exact same logic you just used--that the large majority of Americans are for it, we obviously should be doing it. BTW, the portion of the reserve to be drilled in is a fraction of 1% of the whole area, and it's doubtful there would be any environmental harm even with that. This same bogus leftist crap was argued a generation ago over the pipeline.

[oregonpackfan]

Environmental impacts or not, ANWR is not the "cure-all" to America's oil needs that advocates claim.

If we were to start drilling in ANWR today, it would take 10 years before any of that oil made it to American consumers.

In addition, it is estimated that the oil in ANWR would only be a 1 year supply of America's petroleum needs.

[texaspackerbacker]

I have heard that said--without substantiation--before--the incredible ten year lag thing. Do you have any solid evidence--preferably more than restating by liberal think tanks? Of course, the counter to that is that if stupid wacko leftist environmentalists had not prevented the drilling ten years ago, we would have access to it now.

In addition to ANWAR, there is, of course, massive amounts of obtainable oil in America--the Pacific Coast, the Atlantic Coast, deeper water in the Gulf, the Bakken formation, various other fields throughout the Rockies that were made off limits in the Clinton Administration that supposedly have greater reserves than Saudi Arabia. How could you and other libs possibly NOT put the clear benefit to PEOPLE of using these sources ahead of the potential but highly unlikely harm to the environment?

[digitaldean]

There are multiple nations that are going to drill offshore.

Holland
Great Britain
Norway

are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.

I find it utterly non-sensical to legislate out the building of new refineries and the drilling on our continental shelf or getting oil shale out of the Rocky Mt. range.

I fault a Congress that is so scared by the environmental groups that they allow themselves to be bowled over. I fault a former gov. like Jeb Bush of FLA that refused to allow drilling off shore, but has no problem with China drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

I do fault the public for not wanting to be informed enough on this topic and the oil companies for not reinvesting in their own infrastructure. From a PR standpoint, they are not shooting themselves in the foot, they are succeeding in living up to the evil empire characture some wish to paint on them.

[Freak Out]

There are multiple nations that are going to drill offshore.

Holland
Great Britain
Norway

are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.

I find it utterly non-sensical to legislate out the building of new refineries and the drilling on our continental shelf or getting oil shale out of the Rocky Mt. range.

I fault a Congress that is so scared by the environmental groups that they allow themselves to be bowled over. I fault a former gov. like Jeb Bush of FLA that refused to allow drilling off shore, but has no problem with China drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

I do fault the public for not wanting to be informed enough on this topic and the oil companies for not reinvesting in their own infrastructure. From a PR standpoint, they are not shooting themselves in the foot, they are succeeding in living up to the evil empire characture some wish to paint on them.

:bang:

First of all...China is NOT drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

The only way our Country can survive this mess is to reduce our consumption of oil. Thats it. We can poke holes in every State of the Union and off every coast and we can never come close to matching our consumption.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There are multiple nations that are going to drill offshore.

Holland
Great Britain
Norway

are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.

I find it utterly non-sensical to legislate out the building of new refineries and the drilling on our continental shelf or getting oil shale out of the Rocky Mt. range.

I fault a Congress that is so scared by the environmental groups that they allow themselves to be bowled over. I fault a former gov. like Jeb Bush of FLA that refused to allow drilling off shore, but has no problem with China drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

I do fault the public for not wanting to be informed enough on this topic and the oil companies for not reinvesting in their own infrastructure. From a PR standpoint, they are not shooting themselves in the foot, they are succeeding in living up to the evil empire characture some wish to paint on them.

To constantly blame eco groups for non drilling is wrong.

Jeb didn't succumb because of them. I lived in Florida during that time..and it was strictly (oK there are always other factors) a tourism and small biz thing. You think disney, resorts, hotels, bars, jetski renters, etc..and all those who make their living off of tourism wanted drilling? LOL

You think they weren't scared of how badly the economy would be crippled by an oil spill? Think, man, think. Florida's economy is tourism dominated. It was devasted after 9/11..nobody wants that to happen again.

The other big reason was fishing. Florida has tons of fisherman, oysterman, etc. Take away the fishing from tourists..and the commercial fisherman..and you have another disaster.

Now, i'm not here to argue or debate on the likelihood of a disaster happening, but, your reasons for Jeb's decision is wrong.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's NOT wrong to blame wacko environmentalists for the prohibition of drilling in these areas. They clearly are the main ones pushing obstruction of the drilling. The only question is whether they are the naive good intentioned but misguided environmentalists who really think harm would be done, or whether they are the type of environmentalists who know damn well the drilling would do no or very little harm, but just want to see the lifestyle of Americans cut down a peg or two--as articulated recently by Barak Obama.

For the long term--30, 50, maybe 100 years, we need to switch to something other than oil. That technology will, of course, be with us at reasonable prices long before that time. For the short term, far and away the best way to BENEFIT PEOPLE--the COMPASSION that is so important these days--is to use the oil that is easily available in very large supply--if we just get over the bogus environmentalist crap keeping it from being used.

[LL2]

Not trying to shift gears in this thread, but I came across the quote below from Obama's book. Now, I might be taking it out of context as I have not read the entire book or even the chapter where this quote comes from. I do have a problem that our potential future president says he will side with the Muslims. This is different than saying he will side with the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. So, will he side with the Muslims if Americans do not because of a terrorist attack?

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an
ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not trying to shift gears in this thread, but I came across the quote below from Obama's book. Now, I might be taking it out of context as I have not read the entire book or even the chapter where this quote comes from. I do have a problem that our potential future president says he will side with the Muslims. This is different than saying he will side with the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. So, will he side with the Muslims if Americans do not because of a terrorist attack?

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an
ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

You mean you came across this ALLEGED quote..on some right wing web site or blog..and took it for truth.

And, then you or the writer determined that Muslims had to mean non U.S. muslims.

But, instead of posting this GARBAGE..you could have done some research..or actually read his book. But, that would require work. Sigh.

What was actually written:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Obama doesn't mention Muslims here at all; he's clearly talking about U.S. citizens of Arab and Pakistani descent.

It's clear in reading the text that the words actually represent a question Obama is being asked by his audiences: "they need specific assurances ... that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

You think this distorts Obama's quote and misrepresents who he was talking about, lumping together an entire religion when he was talking to two groups of people in the context of discrimination. :roll:

[bobblehead]

There are multiple nations that are going to drill offshore.

Holland
Great Britain
Norway

are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.

I find it utterly non-sensical to legislate out the building of new refineries and the drilling on our continental shelf or getting oil shale out of the Rocky Mt. range.

I fault a Congress that is so scared by the environmental groups that they allow themselves to be bowled over. I fault a former gov. like Jeb Bush of FLA that refused to allow drilling off shore, but has no problem with China drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

I do fault the public for not wanting to be informed enough on this topic and the oil companies for not reinvesting in their own infrastructure. From a PR standpoint, they are not shooting themselves in the foot, they are succeeding in living up to the evil empire characture some wish to paint on them.

To constantly blame eco groups for non drilling is wrong.

Jeb didn't succumb because of them. I lived in Florida during that time..and it was strictly (oK there are always other factors) a tourism and small biz thing. You think disney, resorts, hotels, bars, jetski renters, etc..and all those who make their living off of tourism wanted drilling? LOL

You think they weren't scared of how badly the economy would be crippled by an oil spill? Think, man, think. Florida's economy is tourism dominated. It was devasted after 9/11..nobody wants that to happen again.

The other big reason was fishing. Florida has tons of fisherman, oysterman, etc. Take away the fishing from tourists..and the commercial fisherman..and you have another disaster.

Now, i'm not here to argue or debate on the likelihood of a disaster happening, but, your reasons for Jeb's decision is wrong.

Call me crazy but guys living off tourism really should want cheap oil....I mean, how do you think tourists tour?

Here is the bottom line, there is a lot of misinformation on all this. No doubt, Jeb didn't want oil near his state, ted kennedy dind't want windmills near his vacation home, and the extreme environmentalists don't want any drilling anywhere.

I disagree with hoosier, drilling and getting more independent is vastly important. Eventually we will demand more than is possible to drill, but other technologies are in the pipeline...a common mistake guys like barack and other dems make is thinking you can legislate technology....Make a 100MPG car...but sir, we are nowhere near that....nevermind that, I am a politician and i demand it...while your at it could you make me able to fly? We are getting close on solar, we are there on nuclear, please please please let the guys who are a lot smarter than any of us make our lives easier. In the meantime lets use the best source we know.

[LL2]

Not trying to shift gears in this thread, but I came across the quote below from Obama's book. Now, I might be taking it out of context as I have not read the entire book or even the chapter where this quote comes from. I do have a problem that our potential future president says he will side with the Muslims. This is different than saying he will side with the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. So, will he side with the Muslims if Americans do not because of a terrorist attack?

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an
ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!



You mean you came across this ALLEGED quote..on some right wing web site or blog..and took it for truth.

And, then you or the writer determined that Muslims had to mean non U.S. muslims.

But, instead of posting this GARBAGE..you could have done some research..or actually read his book. But, that would require work. Sigh.

What was actually written:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Obama doesn't mention Muslims here at all; he's clearly talking about U.S. citizens of Arab and Pakistani descent.

It's clear in reading the text that the words actually represent a question Obama is being asked by his audiences: "they need specific assurances ... that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

You think this distorts Obama's quote and misrepresents who he was talking about, lumping together an entire religion when he was talking to two groups of people in the context of discrimination. :roll:

Thanks for doing the research for me. I'm at work and didn't have the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There are multiple nations that are going to drill offshore.

Holland
Great Britain
Norway

are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.

I find it utterly non-sensical to legislate out the building of new refineries and the drilling on our continental shelf or getting oil shale out of the Rocky Mt. range.

I fault a Congress that is so scared by the environmental groups that they allow themselves to be bowled over. I fault a former gov. like Jeb Bush of FLA that refused to allow drilling off shore, but has no problem with China drilling within site of our territorial waters near Cuba.

I do fault the public for not wanting to be informed enough on this topic and the oil companies for not reinvesting in their own infrastructure. From a PR standpoint, they are not shooting themselves in the foot, they are succeeding in living up to the evil empire characture some wish to paint on them.

To constantly blame eco groups for non drilling is wrong.

Jeb didn't succumb because of them. I lived in Florida during that time..and it was strictly (oK there are always other factors) a tourism and small biz thing. You think disney, resorts, hotels, bars, jetski renters, etc..and all those who make their living off of tourism wanted drilling? LOL

You think they weren't scared of how badly the economy would be crippled by an oil spill? Think, man, think. Florida's economy is tourism dominated. It was devasted after 9/11..nobody wants that to happen again.

The other big reason was fishing. Florida has tons of fisherman, oysterman, etc. Take away the fishing from tourists..and the commercial fisherman..and you have another disaster.

Now, i'm not here to argue or debate on the likelihood of a disaster happening, but, your reasons for Jeb's decision is wrong.

Call me crazy but guys living off tourism really should want cheap oil....I mean, how do you think tourists tour?

Here is the bottom line, there is a lot of misinformation on all this. No doubt, Jeb didn't want oil near his state, ted kennedy dind't want windmills near his vacation home, and the extreme environmentalists don't want any drilling anywhere.

I disagree with hoosier, drilling and getting more independent is vastly important. Eventually we will demand more than is possible to drill, but other technologies are in the pipeline...a common mistake guys like barack and other dems make is thinking you can legislate technology....Make a 100MPG car...but sir, we are nowhere near that....nevermind that, I am a politician and i demand it...while your at it could you make me able to fly? We are getting close on solar, we are there on nuclear, please please please let the guys who are a lot smarter than any of us make our lives easier. In the meantime lets use the best source we know.

Maybe, maybe not.

Cheap or expensive oil...you can still sun yourself on the beach.

Cheaper oil...with a spill...sorry, you are looking for other places to vacay.

[bobblehead]

and out of the hundreds of oil rigs in america and thousands around the world, how many were there last year?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

and out of the hundreds of oil rigs in america and thousands around the world, how many were there last year?

I already addressed this...please read my post. You are now spinning a new argument...one i never made, nor opposed. Are you trying to argue with yourself?

Not start something, but how many oil rigs currently are in Hurricane zones? I dont' know anything about that. Maybe tons.

BTW, i don't think rigs is the only thing...shipping disaster, pollution.

The point was that it wasn't eco people that were holding back drilling off florida....IT WAS BUSINESSES..you know...generally those people are kinda conservative, not liberal, eco warriors.

And, retirees, city councils, the state legislature, etc.

See, when you are conservative..you worry about pushing the boundaries. You tend to think the status quo..if it is working..is good. And, they like what they have...so, if it ain't broke why fix it?

Here is a short story from the SP times (back in 99)...nobody in their right mind would call this paper a liberal one..that illustrates who is against any offshore drilling. IN this story is it is natural gas.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/92899/State/Offshore_drilling_foe.shtml

"Drilling opponents ranged from gray-haired retirees to buttoned-down marketing executives to teenage skateboarders -- unified in their desire to protect the Panhandle's sugar-white beaches and clear Gulf of Mexico waters from any taint of pollution from offshore rigs."


And, this is a bipartisan effort.

Linkage (http://www.environmentflorida.org/newsroom/shores/save-our-shores-news/legislators-citizens-business-and-environmental-leaders-speak-out-against-proposal-to-drill-floridas-coasts-at-public-hearing#Nqaw1A8Z475_fpvgvpSqYQ)
It brings everybody together. In 06 at a press conference at the Capitol prior to the public hearing, Representatives Ken Gottlieb (D), Everett Rice (R) Gus Bilirakis (R) and Senator Rod Smith (D) were joined by spokespeople for U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez, Congressman Allen Boyd and Congressman Jim Davis, as well as business and environmental leaders. Standing next to a mock oil rig and with a crowd of citizens behind them holding signs with slogans like “Don’t Rig Florida’s Future”, Florida legislators called on the federal government to drop plans to open two million acres off Florida’s gulf coast to new oil and gas offshore drilling.

[bobblehead]

I fully agree with it being bipartisan against it being in their back yard. Here in nevada we want new nuclear plants, but we don't want the waste stored in Yucca. Everyone wants more energy, but they want everyone else to put up with the inconveniences....Jeb will never have any credibility in this debate with me again just cuz of this.

You said something about cheaper oil with a spill and you are vacationing elsewhere...I was simply making the point that oil spills are VERY rare now days. Actually reading back you brought it up twice, once implying that is why businesses were against drilling offshore in florida.

I do think environmental groups are the MAIN group that opposes drilling, but again, I readily admit, no one wants it in their backyard.


My only issue is this....we have a supply demand problem...you can do something about it or you can do nothing. I want drilling....and nuclear to bridge us until the renewable clean energy comes online. You can argue with me about who is obstructing the drilling (but we aren't really arguing, we are agreeing) or you can advocate a solution. I have stated my position, I am interested in hearing yours.

Incidentally I wrote a letter to the local paper saying we need to cut a deal with the feds and allow Yucca to go forward in exchange for putting the worlds largest nuclear plant online right on site to be guarded by our military. Its win win.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008

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 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 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.

[BallHawk]

Good article, HH. The article is mostly spot-on. Obama is a smarter cookie than most people think he is.

1 point for Mr. Applebee.

[The Leaper]

The entire issue that will define this campaign is CHANGE.

Obama loves to toss the term out there...but make no mistake, the RNC can have a field day based on Obama's career (what has he done to forge change to this point that proves he can do it as President?) and his utter lack of specifics regarding many of his proposed changes.

Meanwhile, McCain can very easily campaign as an agent of change...and should do so heavily. He's the one with the proven track record as a guy that can interact with both sides of the aisle to get things done...not just stick to a party line beholden to special interests.

So, the campaign will come down to how well Obama can explain WHAT he can change specifically...and how well McCain can speak to the fact that he in fact is the better option for real change. This election is entirely about the independents...typical Dems and Reps are going to vote for their guy, even if they have to hold their nose to do it (think Clinton supporters and evangelicals) but the independents are who will decide this battle.

[The Leaper]

My only issue is this....we have a supply demand problem.

Actually, we don't.

There is plenty of supply. Are you having to wait in a line for 3 hours to get your gas? Is there some kind of rationing in your area for fuel?

Our problem isn't a lack of supply...our problem is dependence on others for a product that underpins our entire economy. The fall of the dollar and increase in demand elsewhere has left us incredibly vulnerable to price fluctuation.

Americans need to stop being lazy and sitting around trying to grab their 15 minutes of fame in one of a plethora of reality shows...and they need to start becoming citizens of a nation again. Find candidates with REAL IDEAS for the future, not empty promises.

[LL2]

I’m not crazy about Obama, but I like the fact that he’s ditching public financing. Using supporter’s money and not tax money should be the way it is. Yeah he flip flopped on the issue, and did it because he can. If he didn’t have a financial war chest he probably wouldn’t have. We have too many career politicians, on both sides, that keep our government screwed up and in debt because they pass legislation and give out tax money for every program all in name of getting reelected.

[sheepshead]

RealClearPolitics has an electoral map showing states leaning/favoring Obama, leaning/favoring MCCain, and tossups. The good news for Obama is that he would need to get only about 30% of the electoral votes from the tossup states to win. The good news for McCain is that most of the tossup states are states that have gone to Bush in the last 2 elections.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Walter Mondale was up 15 points at this point in 1984. He ended up winning one state. I don't see how Barry can win 10 states in November. He'll get killed in the debates for one. Secondly, the polls were so far off in 2004, with the racial component (people wont say what they really believe), I dont think a poll can be trusted this time around.

[Freak Out]

RealClearPolitics has an electoral map showing states leaning/favoring Obama, leaning/favoring MCCain, and tossups. The good news for Obama is that he would need to get only about 30% of the electoral votes from the tossup states to win. The good news for McCain is that most of the tossup states are states that have gone to Bush in the last 2 elections.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Walter Mondale was up 15 points at this point in 1984. He ended up winning one state. I don't see how Barry can win 10 states in November. He'll get killed in the debates for one. Secondly, the polls were so far off in 2004, with the racial component (people wont say what they really believe), I dont think a poll can be trusted this time around.

Mondale wasn't filling stadiums and raising money the Hussein is. But stranger things have happened in politics before.

[The Leaper]

Using supporter’s money and not tax money should be the way it is.

It also guarantees that the Dems and GOP continue to rule politics and makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to have a chance unless they are independently wealthy to the tune of billions.

I'm glad you like it. I don't. I'm not a fan of whoever has the most money wins. Obama basically just killed any achievements to this point in campaign finance reform...although it isn't like much was really done to begin with, I suppose.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I’m not crazy about Obama, but I like the fact that he’s ditching public financing....We have too many career politicians,


the reason we have so many career politicians is that the incumbants have enormous advantages in raising money. They use their office as a money making machine, and with the cost of campaigning, they have little choice but to do so.

You can't oppose campaign finance limits and similtaneously complain about "career politicians", that's double dipping. Choose your poison.


Oh, and Obama is the biggest fraud since Tony Mandarich.

[bobblehead]

My only issue is this....we have a supply demand problem.

Actually, we don't.

There is plenty of supply. Are you having to wait in a line for 3 hours to get your gas? Is there some kind of rationing in your area for fuel?

Our problem isn't a lack of supply...our problem is dependence on others for a product that underpins our entire economy. The fall of the dollar and increase in demand elsewhere has left us incredibly vulnerable to price fluctuation.

Americans need to stop being lazy and sitting around trying to grab their 15 minutes of fame in one of a plethora of reality shows...and they need to start becoming citizens of a nation again. Find candidates with REAL IDEAS for the future, not empty promises.

No, I don't stand in line, I pay more than the chinese or the other people competing with me for supply. Thats how it works...there was no shortage of clean water in New Orleans after Katrina either.....if you could afford $10 per bottle.

At this point the world wants 86 million barrels of oil a day....the world produces 84.5 million barrels, thus the price is set to block out the last 1.5 million barrels of demand.

Come to think of it, there is no shortage of ocean view condos either....hell, anyone who pays 10 Million can get one.

edit: Incindentally when it goes to $10 a barrel I still won't have a supply problem....but you might.

[MJZiggy]

edit: Incindentally when it goes to $10 a barrel I still won't have a supply problem....but you might.

Assuming you mean gallons here because $10 a barrel would be heavenly right now, wouldn't it? I won't have a supply problem either because I take the metro, but thanks for your concern...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

edit: Incindentally when it goes to $10 a barrel I still won't have a supply problem....but you might.

Assuming you mean gallons here because $10 a barrel would be heavenly right now, wouldn't it? I won't have a supply problem either because I take the metro, but thanks for your concern...

Liberal do-gooder, taking the metro...prolly think you're better than the resto us...sitting on the metro, sipping your latte, reading some liberal mag like the New Yorker.

Real Americans ride in cars and support the oil industry.

[MJZiggy]

1. Sitting on the metro? You gotta be kidding me. People are practically hanging out the doors because ridership has gone up so much over the last couple months.

2. Food and drink are not allowed on our metro system.

3. I read the Post Express (when I'm not knitting or practicing my Spanish with the Latino Times...)

4. Seems to me the oil industry is doing fine without me, thanks.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. Sitting on the metro? You gotta be kidding me. People are practically hanging out the doors because ridership has gone up so much over the last couple months.

2. Food and drink are not allowed on our metro system.

3. I read the Post Express (when I'm not knitting or practicing my Spanish with the Latino Times...)

4. Seems to me the oil industry is doing fine without me, thanks.

1. Crowded with america haters. Time for some self sacrifice. The oil companies need our money. Do you want them to go outta business.

2. Prolly cause some liberal did it. Always trying to turn us into a nanny state.

3. Post Express..another america hatin rag. Spanish...wtf. Cultural diversity..my ass. Why shoud any good, normal american learn another language, let them learn english.

4. How can you say that. Do you realize that with your help they coulda made even more record profits. Don't you wanna be part of a record. THis is your chance to be a part of history.

[Charles Woodson]

\Spanish...wtf. Cultural diversity..my ass. Why shoud any good, normal american learn another language, let them learn english.


lol you should come down to miami and try saying that, but then again no one would probably understand you.

[MJZiggy]

Spanish...wtf. Cultural diversity..my ass. Why shoud any good, normal american learn another language, let them learn english.


I'm planning on visiting a Spanish speaking country one day...like say, California.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Spanish...wtf. Cultural diversity..my ass. Why shoud any good, normal american learn another language, let them learn english.


I'm planning on visiting a Spanish speaking country one day...like say, California.

Will you be wearing your Che Guevara tee when you visit, COMRADE!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

\Spanish...wtf. Cultural diversity..my ass. Why shoud any good, normal american learn another language, let them learn english.


lol you should come down to miami and try saying that, but then again no one would probably understand you.

One of the reasons i didn't relo there when i lived in Fl. Knew that my spanish wasn't good enough..and you really need to speak it to be successful (esp. with all the chicas) in that city.

[Joemailman]

http://www.270towin.com/

270towin.com has an interactive map where you can do your own electoral college projection. Right now mine shows Obama winning 289-249. I have Obama winning 5 states that Bush took in 2004: Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico. McCain takes 2 states that Kerry took in 2004: New Hampshire, New Jersey. Of course, under my scenario, McCain would only have to take Pennsylvania to turn the election the other way. Or he could win Ohio which would create a tie which would be decided by the House. McCain could also narrow the gap by picking Tim Pawlenty as his running mate. Putting Minnesota in the McCain column would make the count 279-259

[bobblehead]

Joe-

I'm half serious here as I don't know the answer, but I have a strong suspicion.....when is the last time minnesota voted republican for prez?

[Joemailman]

Last time it went Republican was 1972, but both 2000 and 2004 were quite close. Minnesota is definitely not as liberal as it used to be.

[texaspackerbacker]

http://www.270towin.com/

270towin.com has an interactive map where you can do your own electoral college projection. Right now mine shows Obama winning 289-249. I have Obama winning 5 states that Bush took in 2004: Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico. McCain takes 2 states that Kerry took in 2004: New Hampshire, New Jersey. Of course, under my scenario, McCain would only have to take Pennsylvania to turn the election the other way. Or he could win Ohio which would create a tie which would be decided by the House. McCain could also narrow the gap by picking Tim Pawlenty as his running mate. Putting Minnesota in the McCain column would make the count 279-259

I give Obama Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, and Minnesota.

I give McCain Virginia, Ohio, and New Mexico of those you mentioned, Joe, as well as Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina among states projected to be close.

That leaves it at McCain 269 and Obama at 228, with 42 swing votes, if I added right. The swing states would be Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire. I'd like to see McCain take Romney as his VP. Why? Because Michigan is more in play than Minnesota, Romney would help a lot more than Pawlenty nationally, Romney might help in New Hampshire--most of which is in the Boston media area, and Romney would help in some fairly heavy Mormon states like Nevada, Montana, and even New Mexico. Obama won't win New Mexico because the Hispanics won't support him over McCain, at least not in big numbers.