September 18-20, 2008
Sep 18 04:25 Proof That It's All About Political Cover Sep 18 09:52 Tinklenberg Accuses Bachmann of Extremism...Again Sep 19 11:33 Barack Obama: The Ultimate Hypocrite Sep 19 23:53 Staying the Course Sep 20 03:15 The Indespensible IER Sep 20 12:15 The Spin Never Ends Sep 20 22:55 The New Agenda Practices Smart Politics
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Proof That It's All About Political Cover
Today, Minority Leader John Boehner's office issued this scalding statement on the Democrats' hypocritical energy strategy. The statement highlights Democratic co-sponsors of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill that John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie wrote. Here's part of Leader Boehner's statement:
House Democrats say they want to "stimulate" the economy, but last night nearly every single one of them voted against the bipartisan energy bill authored by Reps. John Peterson (R-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to lower gas prices on behalf of working families and small businesses, including 24 Democrats who are cosponsors of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill. That's correct, 24 Democrats flip-flopped, repudiated their past statements of support and cosponsorship for the bipartisan Peterson-Abercrombie bill by voting against it. And by rejecting the Peterson-Abercrombie bipartisan plan, Democrats proved once and for all that yesterday's debate was about nothing more than providing political cover for vulnerable Democrats on the eve of an election, and not about passing "all of the above" energy reforms to make a real difference in lowering gas prices.When it was 'rubber-meets-the-road' time, this group of Democrats showed where their allegiances lied. Here's the list of deserting co-sponsors:
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL), Rep. Henry Cueller (D-TX), Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI), Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)It's worth noting that many of these deserting co-sponsors are BDD's. Still, the most stunning part of this is that Neil Abercrombie deserted his own plan. That's unthinkable. It's unthinkable because it's extremely hypocritical. I can't think of another time when a co-author of a bill abandoned the bill. It's one thing to abandon it if a bunch of amendments had dramatically changed the bill. Thats defensible. This bill wasn't dramatically altered. It was barely changed.
What this proves is that Speaker Pelosi has employed a strategy based on deceit. It isn't a stretch to think she's operated this deceitful strategy with Rep. Abercrombie's full cooperation. It's difficult to believe that the BDD's weren't willing participants, too. As I pointed out here , there was no difference in the way that 42 of the 53 BDD's voted and the way that Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters and Jim McDermott voted. NONE WHATSOEVER.
Again, I'll repeat myself: The only benchmark that matters is whether energy legislation brings down prices at the pump and brings down the cost to heat our homes. Anything that doesn't accomplish that is just window dressing. PERIOD.
Here are the statements of three of the deserting co-sponsors:
For example, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS), a cosponsor of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, voted against it when given the opportunity:Reps. Boyda, Hill and Kagen are freshmen that should be vulnerable. Now's the time to step up the attacks on their credibility. In each of their cases, I'd make the case that farmers can't trust them to side with them. I'd attack their credibility and how that affects the trust level farmers can have with these freshmen. Here's how I'd word the advertisements:
"I have been working with a large, bipartisan group of Representatives to develop a comprehensive, common-sense energy bill. Our [Peterson-Abercrombie] bill will provide sorely-needed relief for Kansas families. It will help create energy independence for America and millions of jobs to help stabilize our struggling economy." ; Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Press Release , 9/04/08
Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), a cosponsor of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, once said "I hope this bipartisan bill will indeed be brought to the floor" but when given a chance, he voted against it:
"I hope this bipartisan [Peterson-Abercrombie] bill will indeed be brought to the floor for a vote when we return to Washington in September," Hill said. "It would provide immediate relief, while also bolstering development of new energy sources in order to move this country closer to energy independence." ; Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), Press Release , 8/14/08
Rep. Steve Kagan (D-WI), a cosponsor of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, also voted against it:
"Kagen, who signed onto the bill Tuesday, said the Abercrombie-Peterson bill 'really is a comprehensive energy policy and a road map forward. 'That bill has the balance in investing in renewable sources. It raises royalty (fees) from those who are drilling and it doesn't limit drilling to four or five states,' Kagen said."
"Congress Sitting on Energy Hot Seat," Herald Times (WI) , 9/13/08
Rep. Boyda/Hill/Kagen once stood for an 'all of the above' energy package that would have brought gas prices down for hard-working farmers. When the rubber met the road, though, Rep. Boyda/Hill/Kagen sided with Nancy Pelosi and K Street instead of siding with farmers and Main Street. Don't we deserve a representative that we can trust to represent us?I'd have videos made up that puts the spotlight on each of these deserters. It's part of my new 'No Prisoners, No Mercy' strategy.
Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:39 AM
No comments.
Tinklenberg Accuses Bachmann of Extremism...Again
El Tinklenberg has made a habit of accusing Michele Bachmann of being an extremist. This time, this post says that Rep. Bachmann's vote on the non-energy energy bill is another example of Rep. Bachmann's extremism. What Rep. Bachmann's vote means is that she didn't vote for a sham bill that's meant as political cover . First, here's Mr. Tinklenberg's latest accusations:
In a move that further cements her reputation as an extremist who values partisan politics over common-sense solutions , Rep. Michele Bachmann has voted against a comprehensive energy bill. ( GovTrack , 9/16/08)There's just one problem with Mr. Tinklenberg's accusations: they're bullshit. The bill doesn't provide "for expanded domestic exploration." Here's what Speaker Pelosi said about that:
Fortunately, the bill passed with bipartisan support from House Democrats and moderate Republicans (like Minnesota's Rep. Jim Ramstad). The legislation provides for expanded domestic exploration, tax incentives for renewable energy, and development of alternative energy resources.
"We're not trying to give incentives to drill, we're giving incentives to invest in renewables and natural gas that will take us where we need to go," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters before the vote.In other words, this bill is about providing political cover. This post shows how much of a sham this legislation is:
House Democrats say they want to "stimulate" the economy, but last night nearly every single one of them voted against the bipartisan energy bill authored by Reps. John Peterson (R-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to lower gas prices on behalf of working families and small businesses, including 24 Democrats who are cosponsors of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill. That's correct, 24 Democrats flip-flopped, repudiated their past statements of support and cosponsorship for the bipartisan Peterson-Abercrombie bill by voting against it. And by rejecting the Peterson-Abercrombie bipartisan plan, Democrats proved once and for all that yesterday's debate was about nothing more than providing political cover for vulnerable Democrats on the eve of an election, and not about passing "all of the above" energy reforms to make a real difference in lowering gas prices.The co-author of truly bipartisan legislation voted against his own bill but voted for Pelosi's latest sham bill that doesn't permit drilling within 50 miles of the coast even though experts say that many of the best reserves are within 5 miles of the coast. That's before considering the fact that the states whose shores the oil rigs are stationed off of don't get a penny of the revenues.
What's the wisdom in voting for a bill that tells states that they don't get a penny of revenue from the oil that's being drilled off their coasts and that doesn't permit drilling where the oil and natural gas actually is?
What Mr. Tinklenberg's post proves is that he'd be Pelosi's puppet, which means he'd be the environutters' puppet, too.
Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:52 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 18-Sep-08 10:10 AM
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! Damn those Democrats for not simply folding to every demand made by the minority party. Certainly, throwing a snit fit and blocking any compromise that isn't full acquiescence will solve the problem.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-08 11:28 AM
Eric, Pelosi says that the bill they passed is a sham. Neil Abercrombie voted against the compromise legislation that he worked with John Peterson on. The bill wasn't amended so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Democrats haven't allowed a GOP amendment for any of the bills they've brought to the floor since mid July.
Where's the freaking compromise?
Please don't insult my intelligence like that.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 18-Sep-08 07:30 PM
Hey Gary here's another insulting example of the Tinkleberg campaign. Somehow which I don't know my work email is on Tinkleberg's email list.
This was an email fundraiser they sent out on 9-17-08 written by Anna Richey Tink's campaign manager.
* They titled the email Turn Up The heat on Michelle Bachmann.
* Later on they tell the outright lie WITH SO MUCH AT STAEK WE CAN'T AFFORD TWO, TEN, OR TWENTY MORE YEARS OF REP MICHELE BACHMANN'S EXTREME AGENDA AND PARTISAN POLITICAL GAMES.
* and there's this ps. Rep. Bachmannpromised voters $2 a gallon fas while voting to give $18 billion to Big Oil and taking in more than $44,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. If you've had enough of Rep. Bachmann's double-speak, ....
Boy where to begin.
What is extreme about Michelle Bachmann.
She's prolife. That's not extreme.
She thinks raising taxes hurts the economy. That's not extreme.
She wants us to drill for oil so gasoline prices don't go up higher. That's not extreme.
The fact that Anna Richey thinks these are extreme positions demonstrates how extreme she is and Tinkleberg is.
Furthermore if what is Michelle Bachman doing wrong not to lower gasoline prices than Tinkleberg and the Democrats know the correct solution. Shouldn't have congressed already done that. I seem to remember gasoline prices were about $2.60 when Nancy Pelosi took charge of the House and they passed a landmark energy bill last that was suppose to dramatically reduce America's energy use. So why has gasoline broken $4 this year. What will they do different. This bill won't create knew supply which is what will lower the price of gasoline.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Barack Obama: The Ultimate Hypocrite
I don't know of anyone who hasn't said something that he's later reversed course on. Often, people are called hypocrites for doing that. That's actually misusing the word. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of hypocrite:
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.The reason I mention this is to preface this McCain video about Sen. Obama's hypocrisy:
Here's the transcript of the video:
ANNCR: What Obama says,Perhaps a close parsing of Sen. Obama's words is needed. After all, Sen. Obama only said it would be "unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall." He didn't say it would "unacceptable for executives of these institutions to help him pick his vice president."
BARACK OBAMA: It would be unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall.
ANNCR: ,Is not what he does.
Meet Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. Fannie cooked the books and Johnson made millions.
Then Obama asked him to pick his VP. And raise thousands for his campaign.
Barack Obama. More empty words.
The most important point of this sarcastic bit is that Sen. Obama isn't about whether he's a hypocrite. It's that he isn't who he says he is. It's thar he fits the true definition of hypocrite.
Posted Friday, September 19, 2008 11:39 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Sep-08 06:39 PM
That's an interesting definition, essentially the opposite of what I have always assumed. In this definition, one's actions prove that one does NOT hold the values previously stated. I have always assumed that the statement of values was /true/-- that at least the person making the statement of values believed they held that value-- but that their actions proved they did not.
But this definition is more accurate. I have always said that liberals cannot be accused of hypocrisy because they have no moral principles they can belie by their actions. Whether they state them or not, or believe they have principles or not, does not change their hypocrisy.
All of it is a bit moot, anyway, because of the marvelous ability of liberals to hold two totally contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time, and insist that both are true. For example, they can believe that they are more moral than you, and then steal your money (through taxes).
Staying the Course
I'm a proud contributor to the NRCC. I'm a proud contributor to the NRCC because the House Republicans have fought the good fight against the dictatorial anti-drilling rule of Speaker Pelosi. Despite the Democrats' latest anti-drilling legislation, John Boehner and the House GOP Caucus aren't leaving the battlefield. Here's Leader Boehner's latest press release on the subject:
Prior to today's debate on the No Child Left Inside Act (H.R. 3036), House Republicans will move to force a debate and vote on legislation to keep the number issue on the minds of the American people, high energy costs, on the radar of this Democratic Congress. The measure, sponsored by House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), would put Democrats on notice that Congress should not adjourn until a real, comprehensive energy reform bill is enacted into law.I said here that Ms. Pelosi's bill was a sham. I said here that the difference between the voting habits of Blue Dog Democrats and such radical lefties as Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Baghdad Jim McDermott and John Conyers was...almost nonexistent.
Two days ago, the Democratic Majority passed a sham bill they claim would increase American energy production and lower gas prices, but in reality, it was designed to provide political cover for vulnerable Democrats who have promised their constituents they would support pro-energy legislation. An editorial in this morning's Charleston Daily Mail slammed the bogus "no energy" bill:"House Republican Leader John Boehner said the rushed-through bill was 'a hoax on the American people' because it won't increase offshore production of American oil. This is intended for one reason...so the Democrats can say we voted on energy,' Boehner said. The sham bill passed with no hearings, no testimony from oil executives, and no discussion at all, Pelosi's plan is a slap in the faces of Americans. Drilling wouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of a coast, which is where the oil is. The Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to exist where leasing is banned would remain off limits under the Democrats' bill. What kind of nonsense is that?"On Tuesday, Republicans actually gave Democrats the opportunity to vote for a real, bipartisan energy bill to begin taking steps toward lower gas prices. In fact, the measure was co-authored by Reps. John Peterson (R-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and co-sponsored by 38 Democrats, a sure sign that it would receive strong, bipartisan support on the House floor, right? Not so fast. Democrats actually defeated the proposal, with 24 of its own Democratic co-sponsors (including Rep. Abercrombie) flip-flopped and voted against it! Does that sound like the actions of legislators committed to lower gas prices for the men and women they represent in Congress? Of course not. Democrats were just looking for a vote, any vote, that looked like it was pro-American energy so they can move a step closer to skipping town once again.
On August 1, Democrats adjourned Congress for five weeks without voting on an "all of the above" plan to lower gas prices, and the American people were outraged. Have Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues learned their lesson? When the House votes on today's GOP proposal to keep Congress in town until a real energy bill is signed into law, families, seniors, and small businesses across America will find out.
The House GOP said that they won't leave for the election recess without attempting to force "a debate and vote on legislation to keep the number issue on the minds of the American people, high energy costs, on the radar of this Democratic Congress."
Let's compare the House GOP's leadership with the Democrats' hysterics-prone leadership. John Boehner has provided strong leadership. He's also had a strong supporting team. Mike Pence, Thad McCotter, Tom Price, Marsha Blackburn and Michele Bachmann were just a handful of leaders that pushed the energy debate. Without the fight that this group fought, Pelosi's Democrats wouldn't have brought another bill forward.
Main Street wants...needs really...lower gas prices. The environmental extremists will do anything to protect the earth. If that means ruining the economy, then that's fine with them. That's why Speaker Pelosi's hands have been tied throughout this debate.
Thanks to the tireless effort of the House GOP leadership, we can now legitimately ask if the American people are better served by a leadership that puts Main Street's interests first or if they want someone that puts the environmental extremists' interests first.
For most people, that isn't a difficult question to answer, which is why I still expect Republicans to gain seats in the House.
Posted Friday, September 19, 2008 11:54 PM
No comments.
The Indespensible IER
Whenever I want the clearest picture of the Democrats' non-energy energy bills, I head straight to the Institute for Energy Research. Wanting to put forward the best explanation on why the bill pushed through by Pelosi's Democrats, I visited this webpage . I'm glad I found it. Here's what I found:
The bill permanently bans and development within 50 miles of shore. [Sec. 102]
The vast majority of undiscovered oil and gas reserves are projected to be between the coast and 50 miles offshore .Here's another noteworthy point made:
Fails to open new, energy rich areas for exploration and development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas in the Gulf could start producing oil and gas very quickly because they are close to existing infrastructure.If the Democrats were serious about providing instant price relief, lifting the ban on drilling here should've been their highest priority. This proves that providing quick price relief isn't the Democrats' highest priority. That begs this question:
If prices at the pump are crippling families' budgets and high heating bills only 2 months, if that, off, and with high prices at the pump crippling the economy, shouldn't providing price relief be the Democratic majority's top priority? Apparently, this legislation is proof that it's barely a blip on the Democrats' radar.
The bill "allows oil shale leasing for research, development, or production of oil shale only if states specifically pass a law permitting oil shale leasing within their borders. [Sec. 171] " That's the good news. The bad news is in the details:
This is only a half-measure to developing oil shale. Developing oil shale is expensive and requires experimentation to improve oil shale extraction technology. It is currently not necessary to get state approval for experimental projects, but this bill creates additional hurdles for experimental projects-the type of projects necessary to one day utilize this vast resource.If Democrats want to one day harvest oil shale, why would they put additional hurdles up?
Let's review what we know at this point. We know that:
- the bill passed by Pelosi's Democrats doesn't allow offshore drilling within 50 miles of the coast, where 85% of the biggest oil reserves are;
- the bill doesn't give states a financial incentive for opting in;
- the bill establishes additional roadblocks to harvest oil shale.
Title IV-Greater Energy Efficiency in Building CodesLet's review again what this legislation does. It doesn't allow offshore drilling within 50 miles of the coast. It doesn't give states a financial incentive for opting in. It establishes additional roadblocks to harvest oil shale. Potentially, it takes away the rights of states and cities to establish their building codes.
This title usurps the authority to set building codes from state and local governments and institutes new national building codes standards in the name of energy efficiency. The likely outcome of this title will be an increase in the cost of new construction and renovation of buildings in the United States.
- Requires states to revise their building codes to comply with certain energy efficiency standards. [Sec. 401]
- Increases energy efficiency standards for building renovations.
In other words, there's reason for states to hate this bill just like there's reasons for local governments to hate this bill.It doesn't provide price relief for working people or small businesses like OTR truckers and farmers.
Finally, this is a bill only a Washington bureaucrat or an evnironmental extremist could love. That's why I said this bill is all about providing political cover .
Posted Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:18 AM
No comments.
The Spin Never Ends
It's insulting enough when Speaker Pelosi tells the American people that the House passed pro drilling legislation . It only took a visit to the IER website to expose the gimmicks in the bill that look like drilling provisions but aren't. Now she's saying that Pelosi's Democrats "took strong action to curb excessive speculation " in the marketplace. If this exaggerating continues, I expect her to eventually say that she's able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
This week, the Democratic-Led Congress has taken serious and comprehensive steps to ensure American energy independence and help consumers with the price at the pump.I'd bet that King's students could explain that supply shortages are the driving force behind most speculation. I'll also bet that those same students will tell you that speculation dries up the minute supply outstrips demand of whatever commodity they've been speculating on.
Earlier this week, we passed comprehensive energy legislation to put us on the path toward energy independence by expanding domestic supply, protect consumers with strong action to lower the costs of energy and to protect taxpayers by making Big Oil pay for its fair share of our transition to a clean, renewable energy future, ensure a clean, green future through energy efficiency and conservation, and commit America to renewable energy and help create millions of good-paying green jobs.
Today, we have built on that accomplishment with another critical step to protect consumers and lower energy costs. Experts have testified before Congress that excessive speculation in the oil markets may be responsible for inflating oil prices by as much as $20 to $60 more per barrel. With the legislation passed today, we have taken strong action to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and make the market work for the consumer.
The American people have been clear: it is time for an oil change. The Democratic-led Congress has responded by taking our country in a New Direction.
Considering those facts, I'd like to hear how Pelosi's Democrats have done anything about speculation. For that matter, I'm wondering if she's able to explain what they've done anything to increase America's oil supply. I know how the president of IER explained it :
For months now, energy prices have been draining the budgets of American families while Congress just keeps talking and talking. Instead of crafting legislation that removes government barriers to increased domestic energy production, policymakers have accomplished nothing. America needs more American crude oil, but Washington just keeps peddling snake oil.In addition to issuing that statement, Mr. Pyle highlighted these specific points:
The beneficiary of this critical failure is OPEC. The leading energy proposals in Washington will lead to higher prices, additional tax burdens for American families, and even greater dependence on imports from unstable foreign regimes. None of these measures will grow the size of American energy supplies, but they will surely grow the size of government bureaucracy.
The proposal passed by the House yesterday:If Ms. Pelosi keeps insulting the American people like this, she'll soon find herself in a smaller, less prestigious, office.I dfy Ms. Pelosi to refute a single thing found on IER's summary of the legislation that they just passed. Better yet, I'll offer this bet with Ms. Pelosi. For everything she's able to refute, I'll pay her $5,000 with the stipulation that she gives me $5,000 for each time that IER's research refutes one of her claims.
- Bans access to the largest and most accessible offshore energy reserves, and only allows oil and gas exploration in areas that are expensive to access and contain relatively little resources.
- Fails to open new, energy rich areas for exploration and development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
- Perpetuates, indeed legislates, the myth that oil companies sit on expensive oil leases instead of developing them.
- Opens the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to exploration but not the nearby ANWR.
- Provides half-measures to allow exploration of oil shale reserves (our largest hydrocarbon resource) by increasing roadblocks to the experimentation necessary move economic production ahead.
- Increases oil prices through increased taxes on oil companies while lavishing subsidies and tax breaks on expensive, inefficient energy sources.
It's time that conservatives and common sense people of all political persuasions joined together to strip Ms. Pelosi of her agenda-setting powers. We can't afford someone so owned by the special interests to be setting the agenda on the most important issues of the day.
Posted Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:21 PM
No comments.
The New Agenda Practices Smart Politics
This Washington Post article highlights a new truly nonpartisan political organization. I know you're wondering how an organization can be both nonpartisan and political. That's a fair question so I'll explain. Here's Dictionary.com's definition on nonpartisan:
not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.Next, I point you to this observation:
The New Agenda's commitment to being nonpartisan reflects the split among its Clinton loyalists over who to support in the general election. But it also allows the group to try to press its anti-sexism agenda with both parties. Siskind said New Agenda has found the McCain campaign more receptive to its overtures, holding meetings with McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina and senior campaign strategists.Put in this context, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the group is nonpartisan. That doesn't mean that its members are nonpartisan. It's obvious that this group doesn't care which political party is willing to work with them on their agenda. That position is likely taken because they're being led by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. While I don't doubt that Lady Rothschild is a partisan Hillary supporter, I'm certain that she isn't a PDS-afflicted woman either.
It seems to me that this isn't good news for the Obama campaign either. How can so many former Hillary supporters jump to McCain without it hurting Sen. Obama? That's why I'm totally skeptical of the daily tracking polls at this point. It isn't that Gallup and Rasmussen are using deceptive polling techniques. It's that they can't be right when put these three things together:
- McCain solidified the GOP base and then some with Gov. Palin.
- People identifying themselves as Republicans has increased dramatically over the past month.
- A significant number of Hillary's supporters announced that they're supporting the McCain-Palin ticket now.
Personally, I'm taking these former Hillary supporters at their word. I'm getting reports that says volunteerism has jumped this past month so I'm thinking that that's proof of the base being united. I think it's also proof that the base is growing.
If we think that those three things are accurate, then it isn't possible to think that Sen. Obama is leading the McCain-Palin ticket by 6.
Posted Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment 1 by Burr Deming at 20-Sep-08 10:59 PM
The endorsement by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will be among McCain's most valued. Here's why.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 21-Sep-08 10:31 AM
Gary:
What happened was that there was a bad week of financial news. A lot of people think we have to kick out the Republicans who messed this up.
They don't understand that the Democrats caused the mess!
They don't understand that the Democrats will make a worse mess.
One interesting thing Gary. One polling company tried an interesting polling technique. They polled on who will you vote for President, but didn't name candidates or party! Now if you believe the Obama camp the Obama voters are excited and just can't wait to go to vote Obama in on November fourth because they want his version of change.
He lost this poll 46-40. What is allowing Obama to hang on is just simply he is the Democrat in what should be a big Democrat year.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
