May 23-24, 2008
May 23 09:27 Florida D's File Suit Against DNC May 23 10:02 Never Send a Toy Messiah to do a Man's Job May 23 10:50 Conservatism's Demise? Not Hardly Says Sen. Thompson May 23 14:21 Chavez, Maxine Waters: Birds of a Feather May 23 22:39 Kanjorski in Hot Water May 23 23:32 Taking Issue With Drew May 24 02:49 Out-Of-Step Amy May 24 03:29 Do We Need a "Reasonable Regulation Board"? May 24 18:04 Jeremiah Wright Still Haunts Obama
Florida D's File Suit Against DNC
Though Howard Dean wants all his problems to disappear, that won't happen now that the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the DNC for disenfranchising their voters . This comes just a day after Hillary threatened to take that fight straight to the Convention in Denver.
Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.This isn't the first time that the DNC has been accused of holding primaries that weren't all that democratic. Gov. Ed Rendell made a similar accusation in late April:
The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.
The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch "from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system" to avoid losing its delegates.
"The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast," Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.
GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): The popular vote is, to me, a much fairer indicia than the pledged delegates because the pledged delegates are elected in a very undemocratic way.As I pointed out then, Sen. Obama lost the Texas Primary but won more delegates than Hillary. How is that democratic? If I understand it right, a candidate wins more delegates for winning minority districts.
Theoretically, a candidate should win 60% of the delegates if they win 60% of the vote. I think most people would agree with that thinking. Of course, we're talking about Democrats so logic doesn't apply.
This lawsuit will likely have a chilling effect on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee's deliberations. I'd have to think that the people serving on the Rules and Bylaws Committee will have that in the back of their mind as they deliberate. Rest assured that they'll know that their decision might well be overturned.
Here's the argument that the lawyers will be making:
Geller, a Cooper City lawyer, said the Democratic National Committee has repeatedly argued that the reason it is punishing Florida is because it held its primary before the February date authorized by the party and then refused to conduct a post-primary caucus to designate delegates.That sounds like a reasonable argument to me. I won't predict that the lawsuit will be successful but I won't predict that it'll fail either. That's sure to have Rules and Bylaws committeemembers thinking.
Geller argues that a caucus would have replaced the vote of 1.75 million Floridians with an event that was expected to capture only about 100,000 voters at 120 polling sites, thereby disenfranchising thousands of Florida Democrats, including those serving in U.S. military based outside Florida.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 9:29 AM
No comments.
Never Send a Toy Messiah to do a Man's Job
Barack Obama wants to be taken seriously on foreign policy even though his most publicized foreign policy doctrine is unserious and lacking in commmon sense. This morning, Charles Krauthammer lays out in excruciating detail why the Toy Messiah isn't prepared for the job:
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?To answer Mr. Krauthammer's question, it appears as though he does. That isn't to say that it's a wise path forward. In fact, it's statements like Obama's that've led many foreign policy experts to think that an Obama administration would be as disastrous as the Carter administration.
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin, and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
It's painful watching Sen. Obama make these arguments defending the indefensible. He either doesn't know basic history or he thinks that he can prevail where presidents have failed. I don't know which is worse: a person who is ignorant or a person who is arrogant. What I do know is that neither person should be given the keys to the world's only superpower. Here are the questions that Krauthammer asks:
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?These are the questions voters nationwide should be asking, too. recently, Obama has tried defending his statements by suggesting that we should meet to find whatever common ground might exist. the fact that he's asking this question suggests that there isn't any common ground between Iran's government and the United States.
It apparently hasn't dawned on Obama that sometimes there just isn't any common ground, that sometimes, countries are simply enemies. That why it isn't wise to send a toy messiah to do a serious man's job.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 10:03 AM
No comments.
Conservatism's Demise? Not Hardly Says Sen. Thompson
Fred Thompson's op-ed in this morning's WSJ is just what conservatives need to hear at exactly the right time. Here's one of Sen. Thompson's reminders as to what's possible when conservatives stick with their first principles:
The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.Americans haven't tired of having common sense applied to our nation's most troubling problems. Instead, Americans have recognized that conservative principles haven't been applied nearly often enough. I suspect that Americans have felt let down that today's 'conservatism' isn't Reaganite conservatism.
Yet there is still a way to revive the conservative cause. Doing so will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes. Conservatives need to stand back for a moment and think about our philosophical first principles.It's great having spokesmen like Sen. Thompson making the case for conservatism but that isn't enough. What's needed are an army of spokespeople who can make conservatism's arguments in whatever setting they find themselves in. Part of what's necessary is to have a bold attitude. Something else that's necessary is that these ambassadors should make their arguments personal. If we explain why we hold conservatism's first principles dear, we're doing well. If we're able to explain those first principles on a personal level, we're doing better.
Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for "progress." At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.
I'd argue that movement conservatives are ready to start another movement. It isn't that there aren't willing foot soldiers for the conservative cause; it's that we haven't seen enough conservative standardbearers to follow. When Rush has talked about the RNC's fundraising woes, his bromide is always the same: Start acting like conservatives and the money will come flooding in like it did in the not-so-distant past.
Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:At its best, conservatism's first principles are so true that they can't be argued against. The only way they're defeated is if they're abandoned on the battlefield of ideas. That isn't defeat, though. That's surrender. That isn't something that I'm willing to do.
- Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.
- In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.
- An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.
- Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today's problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.
Isn't it time that conservatives pledged that they'd fight the good fight under all circumstances? Isn't it time that conservatives pledged to rebuild their state parties from the ground up , thereby ensuring that the Republicans we send to Washington are solid conservatives?
Isn't it time we built our own movement?
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 10:54 AM
No comments.
Chavez, Maxine Waters: Birds of a Feather
Most times, a headline like that is over-the-top. This time, it's Rep. Maxine Waters' statement that's over the top. Check out this video and tell me differently:
Next, check out this transcript of the exchange between John Hofmeister and Rep. Waters:
Hofmeister: I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of this American Congress, ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down and the $5 price will look like a very low price in the years to come compared with if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supply.This isn't the first time a liberal has made a statement like that. Hillary Clinton stopped one step short of Rep. Waters' calling for a Chevezization plan. Here's the YouTube:
Rep. Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing...[long, awkward pause]...will be about...basically taking over and basically running your companies.
Here's the transcript of Hillary's speech:
Hillary: The same is true of energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. We're working to push this agenda forward. The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to those profits into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the right direction of independence.The only diffference between Hillary's statement and Rep. Waters' gaffe is that Hillary would 'only' take the oil companies' profits while letting the CEOs run the company whereas Rep. Waters would nationalize the oil industry. Thank God for Hillary's 'moderation'. I'd be worried if she was as radical as Rep. Waters.
Seriously, folks, this is a perfect illustration of the thin line between what's called moderation and what's called radicalism. Hillary is considered a moderate by those in the Agenda Media while all but the most radical columnists would consider Rep. Waters a radical. Shouldn't conservatives ask what the bases are for those differing opinions? After all, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two philosophies.
In this post , I said that Republicans could be successful if they made opening up federal lands for oil exploration the centerpiece of their campaign. I know that John McCain opposes opening up ANWR but that's his problem. I can't imagine running on an agenda that will increase oil production wouldn't be met with voters' enthusiasm.
Originally posted Friday, May 23, 2008, revised 07-Jun 9:18 AM
No comments.
Kanjorski in Hot Water
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-PA), is in deep trouble following a YouTube video showing him telling his constituents that Democrats stretched the truth about their ability to end the war during the 2006 campaign. Here's what's being reported on The Crypt:
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) was caught on a year-old video clip telling some of his constituents that Congressional Democrats oversold their ability to end the war during the 2006 campaign.Here's the video:
"We really in this last election, when I say we, the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can, the envelope. Didn't say it, but we implied it, that we, if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war," Kanjorski said in the video. "Now anybody who is a good student of government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up."
The NRCC and Pennsylvania GOP both pounnced on Kanjorski's statement. Here's the NRCC's statement:
"For Paul Kanjorski to admit that Democrats campaigned in '06 on a fraudulent agenda to end the war not only exposes his own calculated efforts to fool the voters of his district, but it also raises the question of whether this was a coordinated effort by the Democratic Party as a whole," said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain.Here's the PA GOP's press release :
"In light of his admission that he and other members of the Democrat Party lied, I believe that Congressman Paul Kanjorski should do the honorable thing and resign immediately. He violated the trust of the people of his district and betrayed them through his purposefully deceitful remarks. I demand that other members of the Democrat delegation come clean as well and let the public know if they were part of this conspiracy.I wish I could say that this is startling but it isn't, especially considering this :
"Paul Kanjorski said that the Democrats 'stretched the facts' for political reasons during the 2006 election cycle. As a veteran, I find Congressman Kanjorski's admission to lying about the facts of the War startling. The fact that Paul Kanjorski and the Democrats put their own political interests and thirst for power above the lives of the brave men and women fighting to protect our country sickens me. By misleading the nation and the world about the progress being made in Iraq, Kanjorski and the Democrats put the lives of our troops in danger, and they should be deeply ashamed of themselves. This is a sad day in American political history."
Cornerstone Technologies LLC, a research company owned by relatives of U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski and funded with $9.2 million in federal defense earmarks secured by the congressman, won't pay a penny of the $1.34 million it owes to its creditors, a bankruptcy trustee said Thursday.I didn't think I'd ever say this but it appears as though Rep. Kanjorski is as corrupt as John Murtha. This type of familial nepotism should be more than enough to get Kanjorski run out of the House. Combine that with what he did in the campaign and it's way more than enough to get him ejected. What will happen? I'd doubt that a ethics complaint will even get filed. It it does, I'd bet against it getting a hearing, much less it getting voted on.
When Ms. Pelosi was elected speaker, she said that she'd run "the most ethical...congress in history ." We already know that that isn't the truth. The only thing that hasn't been decided is whether she's run the least ethical congress since the House Banking Scandal and House Post Office scandal.
If Speaker Pelosi doesn't harshly punish Rep. Kanjorski, then that needs to be hung around the Democrats' necks. Certainly, Lou Barletta should use it against Kanjorski as he seeks to unseat Kanjorski. Follow this link if you'd like to contribute to Barletta's campaign. Contributing to Mr. Barletta's campaign is a great way for us to help rid Congress of a corrupt politician like Rep. Kanjorski.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment 1 by Keith Balzer at 24-May-08 10:12 AM
Anti-Capitalists are respected, but their should not be division between capitalists who do not desire corporate synchrony and communists.
Communists, market socialists, anti-corporate capitalists, and the religionists who do not desire to subjugate all life, should be united, and redistribute territory on this continent fairly.
That way we can reharness the resources that corporate maggots attempt to use to fund their elite death cults, and make sure that this continent is in the hands of those who respect its resources, diversity, and its peoples.
Taking Issue With Drew
Earlier this week, Drew posted his thoughts about Ron Paul allegedly not being allowed to speak at the Minnesota Republican Convention. After reading his post, I've got a couple things that I've got to respond to:
Rumor has it that the powers that be in our beloved party will not allow Congressman Paul to speak at the convention. Is it just me? Or is this cause for pause? Is it possible that leaders of the party of Abraham Lincoln (a rather odd duck in his own right) feel it is their province to deny the delegation a chance to hear for themselves what this grassroots phenom is all about? Who do they think Ron Paul is, Sue Jeffers?Frankly, Ron Paul shouldn't be allowed within the walls of the convention. He's far outside the mainstream of the conservative movement on foreign policy. State and national conventions are times when political parties try painting the most positive image possible. That isn't possible if Ron Paul speaks at the Convention because he'd be the only story that the media would cover.
As a delegate to that convention I would like to hear Congressman Paul speak. I would also like to see the rest of those courageous folks speak, who threw their hats in the ring, and have since either dropped out or suspended their campaigns. That includes Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Alan Keyes and, of course, the presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. We should at least invite them all.Having Alan Keyes speak at this year's convention would be a bigger disaster than having Paul speak. Both men are utterly incoherent and angry sounding. They'd turn more voters off than they'd pull in. In other words, they'd defeat the purpose of the convention. Having them speak would be a bigger disaster than having Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson speak at the 1992 Republican National Convention.
It's one thing to welcome Paul supporters to join in the fight against big government. It's another to let certifiable lunatics like Alan Keyes and Ron Paul speak at the state convention.
I will continue to welcome new faces and fresh blood to our embattled party. I have neither supported nor resisted the incredible Ron Paul movement that has threatened to revitalize the republican party this year. But the more those in high places resist the mere thought of Ron Paul, the more I want to hear him out.I've heard Ron Paul in the debates. His ideas are incoherent. During a New Hampshire debate, he said that we could afford health care for everyone if we weren't paying for the Iraq War. Fred Thompson jumped all over that . Here's what he said to Paul:
"So you're saying if we stopped printing more money, we could get out of Iraq and give everybody health care"?Ron Paul talks about fiscal conservatism and federalism but then he whines about us not having national health care because we're "fighting a trillion dollar war". How can I take him seriously after that? If you want to "hear him out", go watch his YouTube videos.
Personally, I've heard three lifetimes full of Ron Paul. That's about three lifetimes too many.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment 1 by Bill at 24-May-08 08:05 AM
This is what stood out to me the most, as a paraphrase, of course:
"It's one thing to welcome Paul supporters -- that is, their money and their votes -- to join in our so-called "fight against big government" (that is, the way we pretend to be against big government so these guys will vote for us, then do just the opposite once we're in power). It's another to actually let Ron Paul, the man who brought in about a million new Republican voters and donors, speak at the national convention, or anywhere else. That might actually RESULT in smaller government, and we can't have that!"
Thanks, but no thanks. We'll just take the party back now, just like we did in 1960-64. Get a backbone, will ya?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-May-08 09:06 AM
Bill, I'm for limited government. I just don't particularly care for the lunatic that's leading the movement.
BTW, that paraphrase is badly wrong. Stop attributing motives to me that don't exist.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 24-May-08 09:11 AM
Bill:
The reason why Ron Paul took off is because he wants us out of Iraq faster than the Democrat Left. In this case Ron Paul is a liberal Democrat. He isn't a Republican. Furthermore if you really want to "Fight against big government" than John Mccain the standard bearer this year has done far more in that regard than Ron Paul.
Gary is right that if Paul speaks he will be the news. Not Norm giving a speech accepting the nomination. Not the platform discussion which shows what the Republicans stand for.
You're just supporting a man not the party.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 24-May-08 09:35 AM
Walter and Gary....
Yes it is true that there are a lot of anti-war lefties who flocked to Congressman Paul because of his stance on the war, but if you look at the over-all record, his followers do have a point about some of his policies. HOWEVER (before you get too puffed up Bill) where I break ranks from Congressman Paul is how hypocritical he is on earmarks. Oh sure - he says that he has never voted for a bill containing earmarks - that is a true statement. What is EQUALLY TRUE is that Congressman Paul has been just as guilty of ASKING FOR EARMARKS as every other porker in DC.
Until the day that Congressman Paul eschews earmarks COMPLETELY (as Congressman Kline and Congresswoman Bachmann have done) he has NO small government bona fides.
LL
Out-Of-Step Amy
This SC Times article highlights how Norm Coleman is paying attention to what's actually happening in Iraq while Amy Klobuchar just spews the most incoherent Democratic talking points imaginable. Here's what Sen. Coleman is quoted as saying:
"I strongly believe we need to transition the mission of our forces in Iraq into a supporting role" Coleman said. "But I don't believe we can delay funding for our troops on the ground any longer. Time has run out, and the president has indicated that he will veto a troop funding bill with 30 pages of prescriptive policy provisions."Meanwhile, Sen. Klobuchar is quoted as saying this:
"America needs a change of course in Iraq," Klobuchar said. The measure "continued an open-ended commitment with no clear transition to Iraqi authority," she said. "My priority is to transition to Iraq authority by beginning to bring our troops home in a responsible way."That last quote sounded awfully familiar so I did some digging into it. Here's what I found :
Since April, I have been asking the President to give the nation a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq.That's what Ms. Klobuchar said on her campaign website 2 years ago. You'd think that she'd at least refresh her information so it's current. You'd think that but that doesn't make it so :
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, yesterday held out the surprise prospect of further American troop withdrawals in the autumn. Petraeus's revised estimate, disclosed at a Congressional hearing yesterday, came only a month after he recommended to President George Bush a halt in withdrawals after the summer.Had Ms. Klobuchar bothered to pay attention over the last year, she would've noticed that the US military changed course. Had Ms. Klobuchar bothered paying attention to Gen. Petraeus' testimony, she would've noticed that we're on the verge of bringing our troops home "in a responsible way." She also might've noticed that we're bringing them home after (a) achieving a massive reduction in violence in Iraq, (b) meeting most of the 18 benchmarks, (c) reducing AQI's influence in Anbar and Diyala provinces to almost nothing, (d) started the process of provincial elections and (e) decimating Muqtada al-Sadr's militias.
Congressional members welcomed the u-turn. The Democratic senator Carl Levin, chairman of the armed forces committee, called the four-star general's announcement "good news to most of us".
Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee: "My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions." He added he did not want to imply that that would mean pulling out a particular brigade or unit.
There are about 154,000 US troops in Iraq. An extra 30,000 troops sent last year to help quell violence in Baghdad and central and northern Iraq are due to leave by the end of July, leaving 133,000 in place. Petraeus said yesterday he would aim to announce another troop pullout in September before leaving Iraq to take over US central command.
That's the difference between a thinking legislator like Sen. Coleman and a puppet like Sen. Klobuchar. Sen. Coleman does his own thinking; Ms. Klobuchar spouts the poll-tested lines right on cue.
Posted Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:49 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 24-May-08 09:02 AM
come on Gary this is the lady who blindly signed Harry Reid's letter asking Rush Limbaugh him to be punished for allegldly calling our troops "Phony soliders" and not matching the contribution like Rush suggested all the signers of that letter do that him and a bidder of the letter did for a fund that gives aid to famlies of soldiers. If the 40 plus signers had done that the fund will have another 80 million dollars.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-May-08 09:08 AM
Silly me. I just think that people should have a clue, especially if they're elected officials. I apologize for having that standard.
Walter, Please know that that was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Comment 3 by Kevin from Minneapolis at 24-May-08 06:27 PM
Great post. Unfortunately, far too few people saw the article the same way you did.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 24-May-08 11:39 PM
Kevin from Minneapolis, I agree that too few people think like me but that's ok. It's my responsibility as an activist to change their minds.
PS- I don't mind having others persuade their neighbors, co-workers & friends in a calm, cool & collected manner. The rule of that game is that there's always room for more persuasive activists.
Do We Need a "Reasonable Regulation Board"?
I just wrote about Rep. Paul Kanjorski's corruption . Now I find that he's anti-capitalist , too:
The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:Here's what the Tax Foundation said about Kanjorski's economic model:
- H.R. 5800 would tax industries' windfall profits.
- The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies' profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
- As oil and gas companies' windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
- Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.
While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski's ridiculous proposal.The Tax Foundation isn't advocating the nationalization of the oil industry; they're just saying that nationalization is least awful of those alternatives.
I'd love seeing the oil companies establish a high profile policy board that questioned the federal government's interfering with the oil companies' ability to do what they're supposed to do. Perhaps they could call it the 'Reasonable Regulations Board' or something like that. I'd suggest that this Board hold monthly town hall meetings all across the country telling citizens all the ways that the federal government prohibits the oil companies from delivering their products to consumers in an inexpensive price.
Capitalists rightly cringe whenever they hear words like fair or reasonable used in connection with economics. They have the right to do that because anything after either of those words is bad news to capitalists. It's arrogant to think that government at any level knows what's fair or reasonable. Bureaucracies aren't littered with people who understand the concept of supply and demand, which means their determinations will automatically be wrong.
I'd further ask Rep. Kanjorski why he thinks the oil companies' profits are setting records. Does he think that stifling American companies' ability to find new reserves plays a role in that? Might today's high gas prices have anything to do with Bill Clinton's 'environmental legacy' that made hundreds of thousands of acres off-limits for oil exploration? Does Rep. Kanjorski think that prices would be dramatically different had we opened those federal lands up for exploration?
If we armed citizens with this information, I don't think it'd take long to start an anti-regulation revolt. People are mad as hell about gas prices. If they were shown proof that Democrats were standing in the way of reasonable oil prices, I'd bet that you'd see a revolution rise up within no time.
Isn't it time to start an anti-oil exploration regulation revolt? Isn't it time we increased domestic production instead of putting huge oil reserves off limits for 'the environment'?
Most importantly, isn't it time to retire socialists like Rep. Kanjorski?
Posted Saturday, May 24, 2008 3:32 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 24-May-08 08:57 AM
I wonder what he thinks of the fact that the government if the numbers are right get more profit out of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Jeremiah Wright Still Haunts Obama
That's the conclusion Michael Barone draws from the exit polling from Kentucky and West Virginia. ese are the key paragraphs from his column:
Now West Virginia and Kentucky are not typical primary states. They, together with Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton was first lady for 12 years, were Obama's weakest states in this year's primaries. And some percentage of registered Democrats in these states have been voting Republican in recent presidential elections. Nevertheless, the negative verdict these voters render on Obama's honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.It's been three months since the Wright tapes appeared. It's been a month since Sen. Obama denounced Jeremiah Wright. Still, more people don't trust Sen. Obama now than they did at the start of this process. In fact, I wonder how bqadly he'd get beat if the Wright tapes came out a month before the Iowa Caucuses.
I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, "When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one 'key defining moment' of this campaign ."
Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them, or disbelieve him when he says he doesn't.
That doesn't mean that I think Hillary should win. I don't because she ran a pathetic campaign the first month or so.
I've predicted that Jeremiah Wright wouldn't be the topic in September and October but that he'd still be influencing the race because he's already done his damage. We've said all along that nobody believes Sen. Obama when he said that he didn't know about Wright's inflammatory sermons. Now the exit polling and focus groups are bearing that out.
Another thing that will weigh Sen. Obama down more as the campaign rolls around is Michelle Obama. Sen. 'Everything is offlimits' says that people can't talk about her. I wasn't planning on asking his permission on that so I'll just keep talking about her. The fact that Sen. Obama doesn't want the press talking about her suggests that she's got a bunch of skeletons in her closet that will turn voters off.
She's already made a number of offputting comments while stumping on the campaign trail. If anything, she's more anti-American than Jeremiah Wright. She's possibly more elitist than Sen. Obama. the more Sen. Obama is vetted, the less likeable he'll become.
Finally, people's opinion of Jeremiah Wright will drop even more once they find out about Wright's retirement home. Here's what Fox New's Jeff Goldblatt wrote about Wright's retirement home:
A two-week FOX News investigation, however, has uncovered where Wright will be spending a good deal of his time in retirement, and it is a far cry from the impoverished Chicago streets where the preacher led his ministry for 36 years.There's apparently nothing illegal about the church buying Jeremiah Wright a home. That said, how much will his credibility drop when it's revealed that he's gone from preaching about social justice to living in a rich gated community? Wil people wonder if Wright is just another race hsutler in the mold of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Will that cause the New Media to question whether Sen. Obama is a man of the people or if he's a man of luxurious living?
FOX News has uncovered documents that indicate Wright is about to move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.
Whatever the answer to that question, it's clear that it won't help Sen. Obama's trust ratings.
Posted Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:05 PM
No comments.
