Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > August > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTalk radio’s eruption over Chambliss and his energy agreement spreads to Atlanta
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Talk radio’s eruption over the “Gang of Ten” bipartisan energy proposal continued on Monday, as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss got into it — in polite fashion — with WSB talk guru Neal Boortz over the issue.
The topic has percolated since a Wall Street Journal columnist attacked the compromise last Thursday. That syndicated vetter of conservative issues, Rush Limbaugh, railed against it on Friday.
Monday was Boortz’ turn. Like others before him, the Atlanta-based radio host complained that the Senate initiative, led on the GOP side by Chambliss, undercut the protests that House Republicans — led by U.S. Rep. Tom Price of Roswell — have generated since Congress left on vacation.
Boortz dismissed the way the senators have proposed paying for conservation incentives in the bill as a tax increase on oil companies — and, before Chambliss got on the line, threatened to vote for Libertarian Allen Buckley.
Chambliss said oil companies are getting plenty in return for the elimination of a 6 percent tax break they currently get and declared that Boortz and his radio compatriots “rather than finding a solution to a crisis that exists in America, you’d rather have a campaign issue for the election.”
Listen to sound clips of the confrontation, kindly provided by WSB Radio(750AM) here, here and here.
Now, some of you out there may theorize that Chambliss — who has angered the base before with his participation in negotiations over immigration, and his championship of the farm bill — may be in danger of losing his right wing.
But think on this: In aggressively dealing with conservative talk radio on this issue, Chambliss may instead be engaging in a Republican version of a Sistah Souljah maneuver — i.e., slighting one’s base in order to reassure the middle.
A partial transcript of the Chambliss-Boortz set-to begins here, and continues on the jump:
Chambliss: Tell me what you’re upset about, Neal, when Republicans and Democrats are trying to lower gas prices.
Boortz: Oh, come on. Save the [unintelligible], Senator. What I’m upset about is that Republicans have a winning issue here, on the fact that the Democrats wanted — wanted — the American people to pay big bucks for gasoline, because it plays well for them in the election. And the Republicans had a winning issue — that I think y’all just knocked the props out, from right underneath ‘em.
Chambliss: I totally disagree, Neal. For this reason: No. 1, there are people — and I hear you saying the same thing some other talk shows are saying — who rather than finding a solution to a crisis that exists in America, you’d rather have a campaign issue for the election. Well, you know, people voted for me in 2002 to go to the Senate to solve problems — not have campaign issues to deal with.
What we did was, we got together as a group. Five Republicans and five Democrats. Four of the five Democrats had never voted for off-shore drilling. They’re willing to come our way to make that commitment. Four of the five Democrats are not big believers in nuclear power production. They’ve come our way on the issue of nuclear power production.
Four of the five Democrats have never considered voting for recycling of nuclear waste from power plants. They now have come our way on this issue.
Boortz: Are any of those Democrats Nelson or Martinez?
Chambliss: No.
Boortz: Well, then Florida is out of the picture.
Chambliss: I don’t know what they would do if we did not propose to open up the Gulf of Mexico, which is what we’re doing, because that’s where the oil is.
Boortz: Well, I know, but you leave it up to Florida and — now, here, tell me where I’m wrong. Does this agreement — I understand there’s nothing in writing, there’s no bill, there’s nothing signed — but does this agreement provide for any higher taxes on the oil industry?
Chambliss: What it does is, in 2004, Neal, we passed a provision that gives an exclusion to all oil companies, including Hugo Chavez, for 6 percent of their income that comes from domestic production. So the top 6 percent….
[CALL BEGINS TO BREAK UP. CHAMBLISS CALLS BACK]
Boortz: Sorry about the cell phone problems there, Senator.
Chambliss: I apologize. I’m on the road here, I’m getting close to Lewis Grizzard’s No-Name Bar down here in south Georgia.
Boortz: Well, go in there and have one for me. Are there any tax increases on the oil companies in this agreement with the Democrats?
Chambliss: Here’s what we proposed. We can’t do anything as a Gang of Ten, relative to how the conservation measures are paid for. But what we suggested to the Finance Committee that will make the decision is that, look, in 2004 we put this tax provision in which excludes from income for all oil companies 6 percent of the income derived from domestic production.
It’s just excluded from their income, totally.
Boortz: From their taxable income.
Chambliss: That’s right. Now what we’re proposing to do is to tell the five majors plus Citgo, that’s owned by our friend Hugo Chavez, that we’re going to take that away from you because we don’t think we need to give them an incentive. We’re giving them an additional area in the Gulf of Mexico, where we know there’s oil, we’re giving them the right to go off-shore in four states in the first phase, and in the second phase, there may be other areas off-shore that they’ll be allowed to go.
They would a lot rather get their production domestically, because they don’t have to pay to get it here. They have the infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico….
Why should we still give the incentives to Hugo Chavez to make money off —
Boortz: Isn’t Hugo Chavez something of a red herring here? I mean, you throw him in with the other oil companies, because certainly he does elicit an emotional response from Americans, but isn’t the short answer here, yes, the tax burden on the oil companies will increase under this arrangement?
Chambliss: That’s only if the Finance Committee decided to use that.
Boortz: Likewise, there will only be drilling off the coast if the states agree to it.
Chambliss: Except for the Gulf of Mexico, the states have the option of agreeing to opt in. That’s true….
Services »
Comments
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
To the degree that a Republican turns against the current establishment and the corrupt, talking point, do nothing mindlessness of the majority of the Republican Establishment, is the degree to which I am willing to consider voting for that Republican.
If Chambliss would actually attack Bush himself then I’d definitely consider voting for him.
I don’t expect that, but I WILL say that I don’t give a flying f**k what Boortz or the talk radio goofballs think. I care about what gets done, and actually compromising on this improves Chambliss’s stance in my eyes.
Martin has got a harder job as a result. Of course, promising to immediately demand that whoever is president begin war crimes trials against Bush and Co would be a sure way to get my vote.
I rather doubt Chambliss is going to do that, but sadly, I rather doubt Martin is going to either.
The short answer is: Chambliss as a result of this has a SLIGHT chance of getting my vote, as compared to no chance at all.
By Believer
August 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
After what I’ve heard from the Republicans on every issue from terrorism to the economy for too many years now, I think I’d believe what Hugo Chavez has to say over Chambliss or Boortz or the rest of the Republican politicians.
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
Oh I agree. And normally his words would be meaningless to me but for two things:
1)The democrats have not deposed Nancy Pelosi as speaker for the house, which means I’m luke warm about how much I can believe THEIR promises either.
2)Obama voted for the FISA capitulation bill when he said he would fillibuster it.
And so while the ratio is still like 90% believability to 1% believability at this point, 1% is an earth change compared to the -5000% it might have been otherwise.
By Ga Values
August 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
This is from the REDSTATE blog, says it better than I can..
Rush, in fact, makes a similar point talking with Saxby Chambliss. The GOP is winning on this issue. The Gang of 10 compromise takes away the only issue on which the GOP is winning.
That focus, internally, is okay. But we should also keep in mind that the Gang of 10 compromise harms the national interest even more than it harms the GOP interest.
National Interest vs. the GOP’s Interest There is widespread agreement that the OCS off Florida and California have the largest untapped oil and natural gas reserves. Opening up Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and the Florida Gulf Coast is a canard. Exhibit A is this. Knowledgeable geologists say there is no oil accessible off the Georgia coast, except in a marine reserve that this compromise won’t allow access to. While the Gulf of Mexico reserves off Florida will be accessible, the Atlantic side will not be. We’re already getting a good bit out of the Gulf. We need the Atlantic.
The GOP members of the gang are also happy to yank tax incentives for oil companies that other companies get. They are, in fact, buying into the anti-oil industry myth that accuses the oil industry of being too rich. No matter than the oil industry only makes 7 cents per dollar sold of gas.
More so, the Gang of 10 seems somehow to believe that by giving huge incentives for alternative energy, we will somehow abandon our addiction to oil overnight. While this is an appropriate long term strategy, we need short term relief.
Saxby Chambliss told Rush Limbaugh that by merely talking about this issue, the price of a barrel of oil has plummeted. Assuming that is true, which really isn’t the safest assumption, but assuming that is true, imagine how much more the price of a barrel of oil would fall if we expanded drilling through the OCS and tapped our shale oil reserves — another something this legislation does not allow (it also does not address ANWR).
Doing nothing is better than the compromise The sad fact is that by doing nothing, Congress will leave the nation better off than it will by acting on the Gang of 10’s compromise. By doing nothing, the Congressional ban on OCS exploration and drilling will lapse for the entire United States, not just Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia.
Saxby Chambliss, John Thune, Bob Corker, Johnny Isakson, and Lindsey Graham didn’t just throw their party under the bus for a politically convenient compromise. They threw the short and long term interests of the American people and our national security under the bus.
This plan does nothing to alleviate our dependence on the Middle East
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this
Why look, it is magical GOP numbers from magical republican sources.
How magical that these magical numbers say just what the magical redumblicans want it to say.
Because a blog called “Red State” is so reliable.
Talkingpoints talking points talking points.
Lies. Lies. More Damn lies.
By Ga Values
August 11, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this
Aaron Burr V. Mexico ..please point out the lies for the great uninformed mass..I’ll post the WSJ editorial, so you can also point out the lies in it..
By Samsara
August 11, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
Good for Chambliss. The sooner other Republicans abandon their slavish obedience to Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity… the sooner they can start detoxifying the Republican brand. Thanks Senator!
By Ga Values
August 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this
Aaron Burr V. Mexico —-since you did not believe that Saxby is knifing McCain in the back, here is the original Wall Street Journal(wsj) editorial. Please point out the errors in this Editorial..
Republican Energy Fumble —-August 8, 2008; —Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election.
It’s taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found — in energy — an issue that’s working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer’s headlines.
Members of the “Gang of 10” discuss their energy plan, Aug. 1. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.
Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson — alongside five Senate Democrats. This “Gang of 10” announced a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break Washington’s energy “stalemate.” What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.
That’s because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast — putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska’s oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.
The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on … oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn’t have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.
Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang’s bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the bill. But he’s only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang’s efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf.
Equally gleeful was Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production — a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with “five Republicans” to “lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home.”
Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn’t more enthusiastic about a “bipartisan” effort on energy, especially one that includes “drilling.” His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn’t sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain’s good friend Lindsey Graham considers “helping,” somebody might want to ask him to stop.
And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.
In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer “Big Oil Bob” — hoping to smear his oil industry career. “Big Oil Bob” has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall’s lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP’s most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they’re fighting on the merits.
The “bipartisan” Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They’ve even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s face. He’d been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He’s now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue “negotiations” straight through the Senate’s short September session and solve his problem for him.
Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That’s the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this
Ok.
Lie # 1 - Getting any news information from any Fox News/Republican news source is an intelligent action.
Any source that says that ‘Drill fer oil!’ is our best solution isn’t something I’m going to take seriously.
Much less one that is called ‘Red State Blog’
Lie #2 - Republicans care about news sources that don’t tell them what they want to hear.
Because other news sources clearly indicate that ‘Drill Fer Oil!’ is COMPLETE GARBAGE.
WSJ = OWNED by Ruprect Murdock=Fox News.
Duh.
Lie #3 - Editorials are legitimate news sources.
See when you people cite Boortz, O’Rielly and the WSJ EDITORIAL page, you point out that you’re just a redumblican because anyone who has a brain knows that when you actually nail down the liars on actual facts they claim to be ‘entertainers not journalists.’
Redumblican news sources are not sources of news.
For example, I’d be willing to believe you still believe the Swift Boat liars. And yet they’ve been disproven. There are two kinds of thinkers in the world.
Redublicans and everyone else.
And as for the Gang of 10, given what I’ve seen, they understand that stomping your feet in the dark like Yosimite Sam and shouting, “DRILL FER OIL! DRILL FER OIL!” over and over again isn’t actully a policy.
If the Democrats had done the same thing when they were in the minority, the Redumblicans would call them obstructionist.
In fact, if the democrats are in the majority the Redumblicans call them obstructionist.
In fact, if anyone does anything besides what the Master Talking Point memo person wants, then they’re unpatriotic and obstructionist.
Keep beating the drum GA values because as stooooooopid as people are in this country (given the # that voted for Hillary and W.) slowly a larger and increasing number are realizing that they’ve had their brain on autopilot for too long.
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
How sad and pathetic GA Values.
Even your own editorial says that their primary objection to Chambliss “stabbing McSouless Undead Lich in the back” is because HE IS COSTING THEM POLITICAL POINTS instead of doing his constitutional duty trying to solve the problem.
Your very article shows how STOOOOOOOOOPID Redumblincans really are.
All redumblicans and most Demoncrats care about is maintaining power instead of actually governing…but Redumblicans are worse.
By Ga Values
August 11, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this
Aaron Burr V. Mexico —-I was actually just proving that Saxby who claims to be a “Conservative” is a big spending, big government, pro amnesty LIBERAL. If you are a LIBERAL, Saxby is your man. I am voting Allen Buckley who thinks we should have a small government & a balanced budget.
By Tom ga hunter
August 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this
You did not prove jack, Ga Values. Although I hate Saxby I know that he will win in Nov. There is nothing we can do to stop it. And Aron Burr it is not good if you are a democrat to go around taking down Americans. Your party already has a Bitter Clinger problem.
By Fed Up
August 11, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this
Ironic that Boortz threatened to vote for Allen Buckley, considering that Buckley is one of the most outspoken critics of the “Fair”tax.
Chambliss’ stance on this issue actually raises my opinion of him quite a bit. The success of a democratic government comprised of opposing political parties depends on compromise. I’m glad that some members of congress are adult enough to realize this, and want to see some actual progress made, rather than just treat this issue as a political football.
12 of the republican congressmen who have been continuing to meet during the recess actually voted to adjourn Congress early. Twice - on June 24. It just goes to show that they are engaging in pure political theater.
How come Boortz (& McCain, etc) won’t acknowledge the studies which the federal government did which showed that drilling in ANWR wouldn’t lower gas prices hardly at all?
A 2004 report from the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration said that ANWR drilling would only reduce the price of gas by only about a penny a gallon…and that’s at peak production, years from now. And in May of this year, the Dept. of Energy released another report which said that drilling in ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by .75 cents - that’s not a gallon of gas, but a BARREL OF OIL.. These estimates are not coming form environmentalist groups, but Bush’s own Dept. of Energy.
I’ve heard Boortz put all the blame on rising oil prices, and the drilling stalemate on democrats - he fails to acknowledge that if approved federally, offshore drilling would still be ultimately up to each state. And California represents a third of the US’ offshore oil…and Schwarzenegger, the REPUBLICAN governor of the state, absolutely opposes drilling offshore of California.
I’ve also heard Boortz repeat the lie that no oil spills happened due to Katrina. The truth is Katrina caused 44 oil spills, and the Coast Guard estimated that as many as 7 million gallons of oil may have been spilled!
Aside from emerging nations’ (China, India, etc) growing demand for oil, other factors which have caused gas prices to shoot up so much have been the weak dollar and speculation in the oil market.
We can thank Bush and the Fed for the weak dollar which has caused the price of oil to raise so much more dramatically for us than it has for those nations who pay with the Euro. And we can thank McCain’s good buddy and financial advisor Phil Gramm for the deregulation of the oil speculators (some oil industry experts estimate that has contributed significantly to the rise in oil prices).
But most of Boortz’ simple-minded listeners just blame it all on the fact that we can’t drill in ANWR, which as the facts show, is a very bogus and ignorant viewpoint. I’m glad that Chambliss seems to be looking out for what’s best for the American people, and not just playing silly partisan games.
By Operation Shuck and Jive
August 11, 2008 9:15 PM | Link to this
The conservs are falling apart, tired of blaming the moderates, they were apt to dine on each other, enjoy the fat on the pork of lies told by righteous Christian liars, you ruined the country and know the country has turned to a socialist, enjoy eating your own conservs. I take pleasure in your stupidity. Capitalism ruined by those who proclaim its mastery. Bail-out failures, what about market corrections, when the conservs come for your 401k with pitch-forks I will laugh until I cry because your ignorance and hate won. Down with ignorance down with Rethuglicans.Peace.
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 11, 2008 10:12 PM | Link to this
I’m an original American which means I do what’s right for my country regardless of race, creed, color, party, issue or candidate.
I only call myself a Democrat to the extent that I can p** off Republicans.
And I am happy to call the vast majority of my fellow countrymen morons when they’re being @#$@#$#@ morons.
Voting for Bush=Moronic.
Voting for Hillary=Moronic.
Hating Chambliss=Reasonable
Hating Chambliss BECAUSE HE’S COSTING YOUR PARTY POLITICAL POWER BY ACTUALLY DOING HIS JOB FOR ONCE=Utterly and totally moronic beyond imagining.
And I’m not a ‘liberal’ (except when I can p** off Redumblicans), I’m an ‘American’, and to the extent that he actually works for the good of our country, he IS my man.
That is all of twice.
By Churchill
August 11, 2008 10:50 PM | Link to this
It is Bush’s fault that Aaron has to refute and disown his personal liberalsism. It is Bush’s fault that Aaron hates the United States of America. I hate Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Churchill
August 11, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this
Name hijacked again…..wow the libs must hate what I hace to say. Peace.
By Churchill
August 11, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this
Name hijacked again…..wow the libs must hate what I hace to say. Peace.
By Churchill
August 11, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this
Name hijacked again…..wow the libs must hate what I hace to say. Peace.
By middle man
August 11, 2008 11:13 PM | Link to this
Wow, my opinion of Saxby just went up. This independent voter will give him another look in November. Enough of partisan commentators fixated on winning issues. Let’s focus on real solutions to our problems.
By Churchhill
August 12, 2008 12:12 AM | Link to this
Actualy my name was not hijacked. Please excuse my rants about being hijacked…Love and kisses.
By Churchill
August 12, 2008 1:59 AM | Link to this
Yes, I was hijacked but that is fine. I am jut glad that I am the first to post that Nancy “stretch” Pelosi just caved on off shore drilling. Peace. (Only libs sign off with love and kisses. Nice try Tom Ga Hunter, you pansy.)
By Believer
August 12, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this
Did you know that there are 1620 kJ of energy in 100 grams of sugar. Now, that’s a lot of bang for the buck.
By Copyleft
August 12, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
Boortz’s “threats” are about as real as his earlier “threat” to oppose McCain when he was winning the primaries.
He’s nothing but hot air and slavish Republican servitude, as always. Before November, he’ll “wrestle with his conscience” and finally concede that voting for McCain is “a necessary compromise, to keep that Satanic Muslim Socialist America-Hater out of office.”
Just like he does every election. And his rabid followers will lick it up and beg for more. “What an independent thinker he is!” they’ll cry, in unison. “How smart I am to agree with everything he tells me, even when it contradicts what he said last week! I’m a REAL Amurrikin!”
By Allen
August 12, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Copyleft you apparently haven’t listened to the man you criticize so eloquently. He has specifically cut off any caller who wants to make the specious Muslim claim. Boortz has discussed Obama’s Socialist leanings - using statements from Obama’s own book. Learn to read someone work, rather that just going with the MoveOn propaganda, before you vote.
By Copyleft
August 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
If you define “socialist” as “anything left of cutthroat robber-baron laissez faire,” then yes Obama would look socialist. So would Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, and pretty much anyone other than Mussolini.
I HAVE read Boortz’s nonsense, and heard him spew his lame crowd-pleaser idiocy to his panting sycophants. I was not impressed. He is Republican shill posing as an independent… but when the chips are down, he’ll always call for bind support of anyone running against a Democrat.
By Fed Up
August 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
“Obama’s Socialist leanings” - what a laugh. Anyone who has paid attention to Obama’s voting record in the senate would know that he’s no socialist. He voted not to cap credit card interest rates at 30% and for “tort reform” - votes no socialist would ever cast.
True, when he was 11 he met an older man who was a communist and hung out with him through his teenage years, and went on to attend a socialist event or two while in college - but thiswas all well over 25 -30 years ago. Its his current ideology (as illustrated by his voting record ) that counts. People change - in his early days Reagan was a democrat and a supporter of FDR’s New Deal.
Another lie I’ve heard from Boortz, and other right wingers, is that Obama’s proposed legislation “The Global Poverty Act” would cost .7 percent of the US GDP…this is complete BS, there is absolutely no spending requirement in the bill. It doesn’t increase the US tax burden by one penny. I sent Boortz a link to Politifact regarding this, but I’ve yet to hear Boortz issue a correction over the air about this.
By appearing moderate (such as dumping callers who call Obama a Muslim), Boortz fools a lot of people into thinking he’s objective on the issues - but in truth he’s just a scam artist who lies and ignores facts in order to further the republican agenda.
By flip wilson
August 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
“Saxby Chambliss told Rush Limbaugh that by merely talking about this issue, the price of a barrel of oil has plummeted.” … is he really that stupid or does he just think we are? Prices have fallen because Americans are driving less, for the first time in many years. Talk is always cheap … the price of oil varies depending on supply and demand. And as Americans, we have more power to affect demand than supply.
By Fed Up
August 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
The main reason that the price of oil has come down lately is that the dollar has gotten stronger. Go to Google News and google “stronger dollar” and you’ll see a number of stories which confirm this.
By Tuffy, The Airborne Soldier
August 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
LMFAO!!!
Maybe Saxby realizes that if he makes the middle happy, while eliminating his extreme right base, he’ll shed Hannity, Boortz, and Limbaugh and become more appealing to an Obamanational base. Smart move, Saxby. Way to stand up to these radio nitwits who think they control the country. Now if you’ll just sign the confession, we can move on!!!