Obama’s Crude Oil Plan
Aug 2, 2008 Political
Nancy Pelosi has called the Republican plan to drill America’s oil resources a hoax. Pelosi and many of her Democratic partners have been opposed to America drilling for its own oil for quite some time and it matters not to them that the money we pay for oil goes to people who do not like us very much. Truthfully though, it did not matter to most when the price of oil was low.
Now that it is high and people are feeling the pinch, Republicans and many Blue Dog Democrats want to drill our own resources. The problem is that Nancy Pelosi will not allow the issue to come up for a vote. Pelosi claimed that the Democrats would work for Americans to find solutions. They were not going to obstruct like the other party. The Democrats obstructed when they were the minority and now that they are in control they, under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid, have done everything to ensure that items they do not like never see the light of day.
Republicans staged a coup yesterday by staying and debating the drilling issue long after the Speaker had banged the gavel of adjournment. That gavel signaled the beginning of a 5 week, taxpayer paid, vacation. Yep, Congress will be in recess for the entire month of August. This, of course, is in addition to the week long holidays they take all year and the end of work as the election approaches. Can anyone explain why we pay them so much for so little? They never work.
Anyway, Pelosi had the lights turned off, the cameras turned off and the microphones shut down but that did not keep the Republicans from continuing to debate the issue while the Democrats left ensuring at least 5 more weeks will pass before this issue is addressed again. The issue now becomes, did Barry Obama add Pelosi’s name to the never ending stream of people who are ending up under his bus?
Barack Obama, who was once very opposed to drilling our own oil so much so that he chided John McCain for changing his position of the subject, has now changed positions on the subject. Yes, in June Obama stated that McCain had changed his position because of political expediency and that drilling would produce no oil for 10 years. Yesterday, the sainted one, stated that he would be open to drilling our own oil. He stated that he would make the compromise in order to have a path to alternative energies as long as we did it safely. In other words, he is now taking the very same position that McCain took only when McCain took it, it was a political move and when Obama takes it, it is compromise.
How will Nancy Pelosi look at Obama’s words? Will she say that his plan to drill is a hoax? Will others who called McCain a flip flopper and only changing for political reasons now call Barry a flip flopper who changed for political reasons? The absolute truth is that Obama DID change for political reasons. If he really felt compromise was in order he would have jumped on board when McCain did (and if he were the leader he wants you to believe he is, he would have been the first to propose it). The only reason Obama is jumping in now is because his poll numbers are flat (and Democrats are nervous) and he is tied with McCain. He realizes that people from all political backgrounds want to drill and he is pandering to them in order to get votes.
The important thing to remember is that John McCain was first on this issue just as he was on the surge. McCain was right about the surge while Obama was saying it would not work. To this day Obama will not admit he was wrong. Now McCain was first out of the gate on drilling for our oil and Obama criticized the position and, like his position on the surge, said it would not work. He stuck with the hard left and their desire to have $10.00 a gallon gas. Obama was Barry come lately. In other words, McCain demonstrated leadership and Obama demonstrated a lack of it. He followed the leader on this one. Don Surber notes that this position changed in just one day:
The Empty Suit on drilling on Thursday, as blogged by the New York Times:
“It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next Administration. While this won’t save you at the pump, it sure has done a lot to help Senator McCain raise campaign dollars.”
The Empty Suit on Friday, from the NYT:
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
Now who is trying to raise campaign dollars?
Here is where the fun will begin. Obama has made it clear that he disagreed with McCain on this issue in the past and had unflattering things to say about him because of it. All the liberal media and the toadies who bow down to the greatness of Obama have been claiming that drilling our own oil will not work and that McCain is out of touch and it won’t help in the short term and any number of other reasons it was a bad idea. What will they say now that the sainted one in OK with drilling? Will they now say it is a brilliant idea? This is the way they play the game. Idiots like Keith Olberman decry George Bush as a criminal for supporting a bill that gives cell phone companies immunity but when Obama votes for it, he demonstrated courage. That is how this will be viewed. Obama will be hailed as a genius who is ahead of his time. Unfortunately, he was way late to the party on this one.
Pay attention over the next few weeks and see how the tone of the debate changes in the liberal media now that the sainted one agrees with drilling. Watch and see how many people change their positions as well. What will really be interesting is seeing how Pelosi reacts to this. It was a hoax when Republicans were pushing it. How will she view it from the Messiah?
Keep in mind that no matter what happens drilling was the plan from Republicans while Democrats refused debate on the issue. Now watch and see who tries to take credit if they change position.
Obama is pandering for votes. He already said he was happy with high gas prices but just wished they had risen more slowly. The Democrats have already stated they would be fine with $10.00 a gallon gas and Obama was totally opposed to this plan until his poll numbers fell flat. However, in two months Obama will be saying he has been consistent in his position on this and has always espoused it.
We do not need these people running the country.
Sources: (Amazing how they report the comprehensive plan when it comes from The One)
My Way News
al-Reuters
Palm Beach Post
The Obama Plan For Victory
Aug 1, 2008 Political
The Obama team plans to use the words “attack ads” and “racism” to win the election. Every time the Republicans put out an ad, the Obama team calls it an attack ad. They claim the ads are misleading and untruthful. I notice they never say the same about the ads put out by them and their surrogates.
In addition to claiming all ads to be attacks (they are or why would you put them out) the Obama team will also play the race card. John McCain’s camp has already stated “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.” This is absolutely true even though the Obama folks try to spin things differently. Here is what Obama said:
Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face,” Obama said Wednesday. “So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, ‘He’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name.’ You know, ‘He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. Herald Tribune
First of all, “nobody” is an absolute. Obama wants people to believe that there are no people at all who believe that McCain (forget Bush, he is not running in the race) has the answers. If this were true then Obama would lead in the polls instead of being in a dead heat. But the second part of the statement addresses this. You see, Americans don’t believe in what McCain says but are racists and are being scared because Barry does not look like the other presidents on dollar bills. We are all racists or we would look past his color and vote for him because he has all the answers. This is how the entire season will play out. Now, anyone who read or heard that statement knows what Obama was saying but his people had to nuance it.
But Robert Gibbs, an Obama spokesman, said Thursday that Obama was not referring to race.
“He was describing that he was new to the political scene,” The Associated Press reported him as saying. “He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”
The Obama statement was absolutely about race. Obama said LOOK LIKE. He did not say, not as experienced as all those folks on dollar bills. He specifically said LOOK. The only thing that looks obviously different is his skin color and that is what Barry was referring to.
They can spin this any way they want but the fact is Obama has made a similar claim in the past. At that time he specifically said they will scare you by telling you he has a funny name and he is black. The sainted one is definitely playing the race card as he did in the primary against Hillary and now he is being even more aggressive in the general.
Let me clear it up for the Messiah. There are some people who will not vote for you because you are black just as there are some people who will not vote for McCain because he is old. However, the majority of people who do not vote for you will be voting against what you believe in. We will be voting against your Socialist policies and your desire for vastly increasing the size of federal government while increasing our taxes along the way. We are not on board with Hope and Change as game plans for improving this country and we don’t want another obstructionist who will forbid drilling for our own oil.
No Barry, we don’t care what color you are because that is not important to the conversation. We care about what you believe in. We care about what you will do to our country and we care about how your policies will impact our military, our economy, and our safety. You are not experienced enough to lead this country and you are too far left (though you are feigning to the middle) for us.
However, I will ask this. Huge numbers of black people are voting for you and not McCain and many have stated they are voting for you because you are black. Does that make them the racists? How come you have not gone after them for their obvious racism? What about whites who are only voting for you because you are black, what are they?
No Barry, I am not voting for you because I do not believe what you believe and I do not like your political views. I am not voting against you because of your color so quit calling me a racist.
However, if it will make you feel better, I am voting against the half of you that is white.
Tags: attack ads, McCain, Obama, race card, racism
Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now
Jul 23, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:
- Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”
There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?
We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.
And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces
So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?
Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.
If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.
The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.
Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.
The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.
Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.
I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.
Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest
Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war
Sign of the Times, Drudge Unburies the News
Jul 21, 2008 Political
Last week Barack Obama had a piece published in the terrorist daily brief known as the New York Times. Senator John McCain sent the NYT his response to the Obama piece and it was promptly rejected by the NYT Editorial Board. In an email exchange, David Shipley (who served in the Clinton Administration), told Michael Goldfarb of McCain’s campaign, that they would like to work with the Senator to get the piece published but had to reject it at this time. Then, a few suggestions were offered to make it more Times friendly:
Dear Mr. Goldfarb,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.
I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …
Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley NYT
Assuming Shipley really wants to publish something from McCain rather than bury his article (and without Drudge this might have been buried forever) we need to look at what he expects. Shipley wants McCain to refine his piece so that it mirrors Obama’s. One might think he meant that it should follow the same format and he certainly outlined it that way by indicating that it should explain how McCain defines victory, troop levels, and timetables for measuring success. That might be a reasonable request in the liberal world.
The problem is, it is more likely that Shipley really wants McCain to mirror Obama’s plan for defeat. Nowhere in Obama’s piece did the young Senator define victory. Nowhere did he discuss troop levels and nowhere did he describe a timetable for success. Obama states he will remove all of our troops (leaving a small contingent) within 16 months. Let me reiterate, OBAMA DID NOT DISCUSS WHAT VICTORY WOULD BE. He is vested in defeat and this is why the NYT had no problem publishing his article. Obama’s piece discussed his plan in vague terms and left it open to revision depending on the situation on the ground.
Obama says that he would redeploy our troops and that he would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. This is the same mantra he has been saying for over a year. In all reality, most of the stuff in his piece is from his stump speeches. The NYT might be accurate that the piece appeared before a particular Obama speech but the content has been part of his speeches for quite some time. Therefore, contrary to Shipley’s claims, the Obama piece did not offer new information.
The 16 month withdraw and leaving troops behind are not new plans. The only thing that is recent is that Obama would now like to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to put more troops in Afghanistan despite his objections to doing that in Iraq and despite his assertions that the surge has not worked. He gave credit to the troops but he was quick to point out that Iraq’s government has not held up its end of the bargain. Senator Obama is criticizing the Iraqi government for being slow when our own government has been non existent this year (and for many years). Nothing substantive has been accomplished by our do absolutely nothing Congress and we are not fighting a war on our soil.
The New York Times has demonstrated its liberal bias just as the major broadcast media did when it decided to follow Obama all over the world. When McCain made trips to the war zones, did all the anchors follow him around? It is obvious that the Times does not want to print McCain’s piece because it runs contrary to their opinions and it paints Obama in a poor light because it points out that Obama has never mentioned victory. The reality is that the Times will print any liberal tripe sent to it by left wing celebrities and Democrats in Congress. This is their definition of unbiased reporting. The amazing thing is that liberals who mock Fox for its Fair and Balanced slogan look at the Times as acting fairly.
Is it any wonder that the Times’ circulation is down and that the once great paper is being run into the ground? While I won’t lose any sleep if they go belly up, a lot of people will be out of jobs if they do not right that ship. The last thing we need is one more thing for them to blame on George Bush.
In any event, the McCain Op-Ed was printed in full on Drudge. At least we can count on Drudge to publish things.
Tags: drudge, liberal bias, McCain, new york times, Obama
McCain Shatters Obama’s Secrecy
Jul 20, 2008 Political
The Obama camp is upset with John McCain because he disclosed that the young Senator was on his way to the Middle East. The camp is upset because they have closely guarded the information regarding his departure even though the major networks have mobilized to follow him around like Bill Clinton following the scent of an intern.
For weeks now, Barack Obama has closely guarded the details of his planned fact-finding trips to Afghanistan and Iraq, citing security concerns.
But Friday, the Democratic presidential hopeful’s Republican rival, John McCain, may have let the secret out of the bag – infuriating some Obama supporters and putting Camp McCain on the defensive. Daily News
I understand the need for a certain amount of secrecy in order to ensure safety but the news has been abuzz about the anointed one and his trek across the world. The supposed “fact finding mission” is really a campaign ploy which explains why Obama has an army of advisers to keep him from making a mistake that might cost him votes. However, the reality of the situation is that a lot of people knew the Messiah was leaving the country and a lot had a pretty good idea when he was doing it.
Read the rest of this entry »