Atlanta Weather

Cloudy

74° F

Pollen 9

Air quality 43

| Traffic

Search
Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.

The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.

Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2008 > June > 19 > Entry

Offshore drilling

By Mike Luckovich | Thursday, June 19, 2008, 07:11 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Permalink | Comments (140) | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this

Here is liberalism’s entire argument for keeping gas prices at 4 bucks a gallon:

{{{{The untapped supply is not likely to have much effect on prices.-Urinal/PMS}}}}

Not likely? I know with one hundred percent certainty, NOT doing anything has a BIG effect on prices. Making them higher, that is.

And the last time that we made a concerted effort to produce our own oil, gasoline was 5 cents a gallon.

{{{{A focus on developing oil supplies could compete with efforts to develop alternative sources and pose environmental hazards.}}}}

What’s the damn difference if we buy it from a terrorist nation or drill for it ourselves, it still “competes with efforts to develop alternatives,” whatever the hell that means anyway.

Is that all the libs can do to “help” the average American, is spew nonsense at them?

Drill now!

~~~~~

Just a short week ago, all was lost, according to the pinko media anyway:

{{{{Iraq’s foreign minister on Wednesday said prospects for a new security agreement with the United States had brightened because of U.S. flexibility on the terms.-Urinal/DNC}}}}

Isn’t it also amazing that a country that, just a few short weeks ago had no functioning government, is now taking complete charge of their own future?

And just yesterday, this was the Taliban equivalent of the second coming of Sherman’s March to the Sea, well, as told by the lib media, anyway:

{{{{>>>>Forces<<<< take villages from Taliban-Urinal/POS (I like the way they can’t even say “NATO,” it must really hurt, eh?)}}}}

Can you believe anything the drive by pinko media tells you?

~~~~

{{{{With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.}}}}

Semper Fi, Bro, Semper Fi.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Will they be able to hide DukaKerry for the next 4 and a half months?

{{{{Obama’s campaign tightens control of image and access}}}}

Can you blame them for trying?

{{{{However, even casual fans of U.S. history will notice that Obama’s understanding of his country’s story is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. On March 4, 2007, speaking at the Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration, Obama, claiming that the legendary march brought his parents together, said, “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama…”}}}}

{{{{(Sorry Barack, but if that’s your only claim on Selma, you don’t have one. The bridge protest took place in 1965, four years after you were born.)}}}}

~~~~~

Aahhh, yes, thee choice is to either shrink the size of government or tax you (your death is not an option:)

{{{{The state auditor’s office found an $839 million deficit at the state Department of Transportation and “material weaknesses” in DOT accounting, an auditor told the DOT board Wednesday.}}}}

{{{{Atlanta City Council members face a vote today to either approve a massive water/sewer rate hike or derail the city’s $4 billion pipe overhaul and trash its credit rating.}}}}

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this

Wall Street Lobbies to Protect Speculative Oil Trades…..Wall Street banks and other large financial institutions have begun putting intense pressure on Congress to hold off on legislation that would curtail their highly profitable trading in oil contracts — an activity increasingly blamed by lawmakers for driving up prices to record levels……Separately, lobbyists for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and other financial entities such as hedge funds roamed through congressional office buildings this month and, in the Senate, left behind short policy statements that defended the current state of regulation. “Blaming speculation for the increase in energy prices is to confuse causation and correlation,” one of the documents said. ….A second document, or “talker,” asserted: “Congress and regulators have acted to strengthen oversight of the energy markets. Give the new authorities time to work.” ….But time is running short. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates oil trading, has drawn the increasing ire of lawmakers for exempting financial firms from rules that limit speculative buying, a prerogative usually reserved for airlines and trucking companies that need to lock in future fuel costs. The CFTC has also waived regulations on U.S. investors who trade commodities on some overseas markets, allowing them to accumulate large quantities of the future oil supply by making purchases on lightly regulated foreign exchanges.

AND

Exxon, oil giants prepared to sign no-bid oil deals in Iraq….. There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this

YEP, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE OIL COMPANIES MEAN WHEN THEY SAY “TRUST US”

[Fight continues for Exxon Valdez compensation…..Nineteen years ago, on Good Friday, this is where the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground, spewing 40 million litres of crude oil into the waterways and onto the beaches……ExxonMobil paid a total of $3.5 billion in clean-up costs, fines and compensation but has still not paid the $5 billion in punitive damages a jury awarded back in 1994….(.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/10/2269642.htm)

AND

Alaska - The Legacy of Exxon Valdez

By reebok

June 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

Alternative realities are what got us into an endless civil war in Iraq, completely losing track of the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, a recession, and unprecented national debt…there’s only one thing to do at this point…stand up and blame the media for reporting on it!

By @@

June 19, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Funny cartoon ml.

Governors weigh in on lifting the moratorium for offshore drilling:

All those Governors in favor:

Florida’s, Virginia’s, South Carolina’s, Mississippi’s and Alaska’s

O.K., so ^^^ those are the “grounded” governors.

All those Governors opposed:

California’s, New Jersey’s and North Carolina’s

Those ^^^ are the governors who reside in the “parallel universe”.

Public Opinion: 67% favor offshore drilling. 64% expect it will lower prices.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

{{{{Barack Obama is stuck with the Democrats’ energy policy — which is denial of reality. Global demand for energy is up. It’s not going to go down in the next 10 years. What more do you need to know?}}}}

{{{{He was in favor of greater energy independence, of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and of no new drilling off the coasts or in ANWR — and cheap gasoline. To believe all that is possible in this global market, you essentially have to believe in a good energy fairy.}}}}

Winnie the Pooh foreign policy and now we have the energy fairy.

Got bicycle?

By @@

June 19, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

but “Tinkerbell” lights up a room don’tcha know.

By Shawny

June 19, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

I like the ‘logic’ used that says because something will take 10 years to reap the benefits then we shouldn’t do it.

So if it takes 10 years of saving money every week to begin to amount to anything, then we shouldn’t save.

And if it takes 10 years to get a PHD and complete your medical internship, then it isn’t worth pursuing.

Perfecting the hydrogen fuel cell technology and readily available supply will probably take 10 years, so what the heck…don’t do it. idiots.

Now if the argument is that it will reduce fuel costs only marginally compared to environment impact, then stick to that argument. Adding the 10 year angle into the argument just shows shortsightedness and really reveals your partisanship.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

ITN 8:12

Thanks for the link on speculators, banks and lobbyists pressuring Congress to not interfere with speculators.

Given Democrats run Congress, that’s quite a statement that they’d be involved with those types.

@@ 8:34

Given that governors are close to the people and that they generally don’t commit political suicide by advocating/opposing what most want, the fact that they’re in favor of drilling says a lot about the electorate in those states.

Dems are veering off course, from an electability standpoint, on this one.

People vote economic self interest, remember?

By sin bad

June 19, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Good ‘toon Lucko.

And how fast is Obama going to provide the alternative energy source to ALL Americans?

By Paul

June 19, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Shawney

True with so much. The time will pass regardless of what we do. Three years of night school to get the degree? Five years of savings for a down payment? Six months of premarriage or parenting classes when there are ball games on? Only difference is, when we get to the end point what will we have?

By Copyleft

June 19, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Denial of reality consists of stubbornly refusing to conserve, develop alternative sources, or raise fuel-efficiency standards, despite the clear and growing need for all these things, in favor of the idiotic “drill more: we NEED to keep our entire society dependent on a single resource.”

But then, reality has a well-known liberal bias….

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

I heard Bush’s speech yesterday blasting the Democrats for not lifting the ban to drill off-shore - he said the rise in fuel prices are the Democrats fault. He actually said that.

He really makes me sick.

His “energy policy” for the past eight years was the Iraq War. If lifting this ban was so important, then why the hell didn’t Congress do it when the Republicans had control during the first six years Bush was in office - the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

If they had done that a few years ago, we’d already be drilling by now.

But yes, now - in Bush’s alternate reality, it’s all the mean ol’ Democrats fault because they won’t allow drilling - even though it would take years to set up necessary equipment to drill, and then once the oil comes out - it will get sold to India and China.

The oil companies will own that oil, the U.S. government will not. It will not be used to benefit U.S. consumers. Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.

We need leaders who will stop these childish name calling blame games.

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

Paul

Please explain this remark

“Given Democrats run Congress, that’s quite a statement that they’d be involved with those types.”

What exactly do you mean “run”?

Can you back up your statement that they are involved with the speculators?

Or is it just that famous Paul sense of humor?

By ali baba

June 19, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

bush is a doodie head.

why didn’t he start developing alternative realities back in the 70’s?

what a doodie head.

i want my magic carpet back

By Paul

June 19, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

ITN 8:57

How do “Democrats run Congress”?” Democrats are the Majority Party. As such, they are in charge of the various committees and set the legislative agenda.

As far as how the Democratic leadership is involved with speculators, I merely read your link at 8:12:

“Wall Street banks and other large financial institutions have begun putting intense pressure on Congress to hold off on legislation that would curtail their highly profitable trading in oil contracts”

If these banks, large financial institutions and speculators are putting pressure on Congress, their efforts will succeed only to the extent the Party in power bends to their will. If the Democratic leadership and rank and file were unitedly opposed to helping out these speculators, the lobbying would be futile and short-lived.

Shawny

April 30 is for you.

@@

June 18 for you.

ITN - both for you!

Link: Issues summary - short

By Paul

June 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

ali baba

Possibly because he was a student in the 70s?

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

{{{{By Copyleft June 19, 2008 8:56 AM Denial of reality consists of stubbornly refusing to conserve, develop alternative sources, or raise fuel-efficiency standards, despite the clear and growing need for all these things, in favor of the idiotic “drill more: we NEED to keep our entire society dependent on a single resource.”}}}}

It figures that a moron liberal wouldn’t even consider that we can do both, drill and develop at the same time, thereby not destroying our economy, which actually makes it doing three things at once.

It isn’t like we are America or anything.

By Goldie

June 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

HA — alternative reality sources indeed! Good luck with that, Dubya, ‘cause the real reality is that the GOP will get kicked in the butt in November!

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Another Aesop’s Fable energy policy of the dimwit left; let’s make the oil companies find alternatives to the products that they sell and earn a living off of.

Got moped?

By Goldie

June 19, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

If the Big Oil companies didn’t have such a stranglehold on our energy policy, we’d already have the alternative sources in place that President Carter was pursuing, and we wouldn’t be importing oil from terrorists nations today!

The GOP and Big Oil are simply terrorist-enablers!

By @@

June 19, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

(((He really makes me sick.)))

Bosch:

Are you sure you’re not a woman? If you’re not a woman, you’ve gotta be a girlie man.

He really makes me sick???????

Anyhoo, Dashing your HOPES!

((Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle doesn’t think so. He opposes the idea of opening ANWR to drilling. But he knows that he doesn’t have the votes to prevent exploration of what many experts believe is a vast reserve of high-grade crude, so he’s constructed a vast array of parliamentary roadblocks — all designed to make it virtually impossible for the full Senate to consider a measure that would allow drilling in ANWR.))

Heck, Alaskans have been on board with drilling in ANWR since Bush took office in 2000. They want the jobs and the revenue it would generate.

By sin bad

June 19, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

“Denial of reality consists of stubbornly refusing to conserve, develop alternative sources, or raise fuel-efficiency standards”

are you not conserving copydeaf?

everyone i know is. even neocons.

just keep holding your breath and the alternate reality will come

By Shawny

June 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

Bosch is right in the fact that Bush’s energy policy was a failure, for various reasons. Anytime a president has his party in power and doesn’t use it for good, that is failure, and he had his chance. Carter had his chance as well, controlling congress with the democratic party. He did nothing but talk. He talked while Iran held Americans for 444 days. NO PRESIDENT in modern history has done ANYTHING to eliminate the need for foreign oil. Quite sad, actually.

Paul…April 30?!?

By Goldie

June 19, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

So, I’m still wondering if Jan. ‘09 is too soon for the trials in The Hague to begin? Maybe we should wait until Feb. ‘09 instead, so that the Dems’ celebrations from Jan. will have subsided a little?

WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Flip:

{{{{Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”}}}}

Flop:

{{{{In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.}}}}

“That was not the Obambi that I knew.”

By Paul

June 19, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

ITN

Yesterday we were discussing the paucity of information and backups for allegations (such as Dem Rahm Emanuel (sp) statement that the land comprised by the leases currently held are fourteen years of of total supply).

Update: seems that owning a lease is like getting a storage locker at an auction. You own whatever’s in it - but you don’t know what’s there. You haven’t opened the door, yet. Likewise, oil companies own the leases - but there’s no guarantee anything’s on the land. Seems most drill sites come up empty. So although there’s a probability of oil, there is no guarantee.

Offshore (50 to 100 miles), though, the reserves are proven. They’re the storage lockers where you’ve looked inside.

I’ve said before we have two strategic interests in the Middle East. One is oil. Seems to me if we want out of that region we need to bring our use in line with our production. No, we don’t produce our way there. But we don’t solely conserve or switch over to other forms (particularly when many won’t even consider other forms).

So it seems clear. If you want to stay in the Middle East, restrict production that will send a psychological signal and come to market in a few years. Select a region where finding the oil and drilling will take more years.

Seems to me, simply on a fundamental level, the Democratic strategy of telling voters they’ll have to put up with high prices and they won’t allow a relatively quick influx of domestic oil is ill advised and not the way to win an election.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Shawny

Once you follow the link scroll down to the ‘toon for April 30.

Link: Click here and scroll to April 30

By Devastator

June 19, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he’ll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.

Obama, who set records raising money in the primary election, will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him in the general election. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election.

Obama officials said they decided to take that route because McCain is already spending privately raised funds toward the general election campaign. Obama has vastly outraised McCain, however, and would likely retain that advantage if McCain accepts the public money.

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

“It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

Obama said McCain and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

“And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.

Obama has shattered president campaign fundraising records, raking in more than $265 million thus far.

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

@@,

Are you sure you’re not 12?

I know several men who say on a regular basis that Bush makes them sick. You want me to give you their phone numbers so you can call ‘em up and tell them how girlie they are?

By don't make him angry

June 19, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

do y’all turn into the hulk bosch?

By Paul

June 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Devastator 9:47

Condensed version: “I’ve got sooooo much money! Lots and lots and lots! It just keeps rolling in! Sorry John, name of the game is winning.”

And for the rest of you: this is NOT a flip flop.

It’s a strategic correction based upon a full evaluation of probable implications derived from developing factors not completely foreseen at the outset.

By GMAN

June 19, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

AJC/DNC Management, I see you’re back to your long-windedness. I guess you’re obsessed with yourself as most Retardicans. Sad, so sad.

By Devastator

June 19, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

Paul,

You are absolutely correct. I admire your analysis without the usual demonization process that comes from the sore losers on this blog!

By @@

June 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

(((It’s a strategic correction based upon a full evaluation of probable implications derived from developing factors not completely foreseen at the outset.)))

So what are the Democrats gonna do when they apply that analysis to lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling?

I guess it remains TO BE SEEN!

By GodHatesTrash

June 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Andi is a veritable fountain of alternative reality BS.

What a moron. POS trash.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

@@

Now THAT would be a flip flop.

Y’see, if you do it, you’ve looked at new evidence and made a mature, reasoned decision.

If your opponent does it, it’s a flip flop.

Basic principles, here.

By getalife

June 19, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

The occupation of Iraq for oil is the story of the century.

The largest crime of the century.

Our government is the mafia and big oil is the godfather.

By Steven Daedalus

June 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Just think guys, if we lift the offshore drilling ban and drill in the Anwar, by the year 2027, if consumption remains the same gasoline prices will drop 2.7 cents a gallon(according to Time) now what is Bush’s real agenda here, maybe to say after 8 years I did something, what a bunch of idiots you Repuds are.

By Shawny

June 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

On that 10 years thing, who made that up, anyway? If you are a company that drills oil today, and I told you that you have a new source brimming with the stuff that is easy to get at, not what you have to squeeze out of sands, considering what it could be sold for today, don’t you think you could get it up and running in less than a year?

please…where there is a will, there is a way. Just look at all the carpoolers today. Were they all there a year ago, when carpooling was so inconvenient? I was, but who else?

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Blunt’s figures show that for the past 14 years 91% of House Republicans voted to develop oil at ANWR while 86% of Democrats opposed drilling there. In the conversion of coal to liquid category 97% of House Republicans supported the concept while 78% of Democrats opposed it. Regarding the development of oil shale in Colorado and Utah the level of support among House Republicans was 90% while the level of opposition to the development of oil shale among Democrats was 86%.

{{{{{When it comes to oil exploration for the Outer Continental Shelf 81% of Republican House Members said yes while 83% of Democrats said no. And look at this figure: 97% of House Republicans want to increase refinery capacity while 96% of Democrats said, no way. Historically, Blunt said, 91% of Republicans have favored development of oil and gas reserves while 86% of Democrats historically have been against oil and gas exploration and development.}}}}}

{{{{{Blunt’s staff also compared the plans of each of the parties to deal with the skyrocketing price of gasoline. The Democratic plan includes seven investigations of price-gouging, four investigations of speculators, suing OPEC, $20 billion in new taxes against the oil companies. None of these would reduce the cost of gasoline. The only item in their plan which would do so is to stop the oil going to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would lower the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 5 cents The Republican plan would develop oil in the Continental Shelf and develop it deep in the sea. It would develop oil shale, and it would abolish earmarks to pay for the Federal gas tax holiday. Republicans and Democrats agree on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Taken together these items would reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline by at least $1.95 and maybe a lot more depending on the productivity of each of the development projects.}}}}}

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

{{{{By GMAN June 19, 2008 10:11 AM AJC/DNC Management, I see you’re back to your long-windedness. I guess you’re obsessed with yourself as most Retardicans. Sad, so sad.}}}}

Speaking of obsessed, at least I’m not babbling about one single blogger, like you are, Girlyman.

~~~~~

{{{{By God’sTrash June 19, 2008 10:47 AM Andi is a veritable fountain of alternative reality BS. What a moron. POS trash.}}}}

Trash this, Nancy.

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

This article is interesting - a little on the conspiracy theory side, but still interesting:

Oil Crisis. Oh, really? They are hiding oil offshore

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

RW,

Then why didn’t Congress vote to lift the ban when they had the majority?

Why the urgency now? Well, of course, there’s the price of gas and all, but did Bush’s advisors not see this coming?

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

{{{{Appearing on This Week on ABC, Murtha also contended that the shootings in Hadithah had been covered up. “Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.” When Alan Colmes asked Barack Obama about Murtha’s charge in June of 2006, Senator Obama replied, “I would never second-guess John Murtha … I think he’s somebody who knows of which he speaks.”}}}}

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

Bosch,

They tried quite often once even getting as far as getting a bill to drill in ANWR to President Clinton’s desk where it was vetoed. I’m sure you’ve heard of the filibuster. It’s currently the favored of excuse for Democrats being a bunch of do nothings. The Republicans never had more than the barest of Senate majority’s and for most of Bush’s first two years were the minority party.

Bush has been pushing for exploitation of our own resources as well as development of alternatives his entire time in office.

As for his advisers seeing it coming they probably saw the supply/demand component, but it would have been more difficult to foresee the speculation component.

Dick Morris had an interesting article yesterday where he lays out the case that neither party even understands the problem.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

AJC/DNCM,

That’s not the John Murtha that Obambi knew.

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

OK, HERE’S A THOUGHT FROM ED SCHULTZ

THIS WHOLE OFFSHORE DRILLING DEBATE IS ANOTHER GREAT BIG GOP HEAD FAKE.

While we are talking aboutthe stupidity of off shore drilling…. we are not paying enough attention to

“BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.”

HMMMMMMMM

Did McCain know this was coming?

Is this why we will be in Iraq 100 years?

Will we be adding the cost of security for big oil in IRAQ to the cost of the subsidies they already get?

IT’S STILL ALL ABOUT OIL.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

ITN 12:22

Stipulate that - then the issue is, why do Dems leave us with no ability to exploit proven domestic reserves (as opposed to searching inland), restrictions on shale oil development, etc?

Their policies would seem to guarantee our continued presence in the Middle East. One can easily make the argument that McCain’s drilling stance will make it all the more likely we’d leave.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

{{{{{The McCain campaign, in a statement, said Obama “has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama.}}}}

That sounds just like what Obambi’s preacher said about him and he’s been his close counsel for over twenty years.

{{{{{Despite Obama’s claim that outside groups allied with McCain will spend millions of dollars against him, few Republican-leaning groups have weighed into the presidential contest so far. In fact, Obama allies such as MoveOn.org are the ones have been spending money on advertising against McCain.}}}}}

The last two Presidential candidates to completely bypass public financing are now Obama and Nixon. Is that the CHHANGE we HOPE for?

By Paul

June 19, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

ITN 12:41

So now millions and millions of healthy seniors will get the message from Democrats that if you’re old, you can’t hack it.

Brilliant.

By getalife

June 19, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

The gop are using drilling as a wedge issue.

No bid contracts for big oil in Iraq with huge untapped billions of oil is the solution.

Its smoke and mirrors to keep the gullible Americans ignorant to their crimes.

And it is working, as usual.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Paul,

When George Bush ran for President (the first time), he criticized the Democrats for not having developed an energy policy/plan under Clinton. And he was correct, although Clinton did not have a friendly Congress. He also boasted of his oil industry credentials, knowledge, and influence. However, once in office and in control of Congress, his administration failed the American people by delivering what? Nothing!

Now some may say that the Democrats created obstacles preventing him from delivering on his campaign’s energy promises. But then he also ran on his ability to achieve concensus and cross party lines. Another obvious failure to deliver.

Now he lashes out at Congress when he says we need offshore drilling (now that little brother is no longer governor of Florida) and Congress ignores him. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the GOP is more prone to relaxing mileage and emission standards rather than making them more restrictive. I know, it’s all about politics.

Me thinks a change is in order…

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

sorry - “consensus”

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

The calculus is simple: Obama feels he can raise more money outside the system than he can get inside of it. He wants to blame McCain, the rain, the park, and other things, but it’s the money and nothing more. It’s a dishonest attempt to explain away Obama’s dishonesty.

This is quite the campaign Obambi has going. Talk to enemies without preconditions, but nuke Pakistan. Tell Muslims that being called a Muslim is a smear and then prove it by making sure Muslim women can’t be seen in the TV picture behind you. Tell the old folks, the most reliable voting block by the way, that they’re worthless. Tell the heartland that they’re just bitter cretins who don’t mind getting punished with a baby.

By election day he may well have turned every voting block but the most wild eyed members of the cult away and they’re so brainwashed they’ll go to the polls looking for the word CHANGE on the ballot and probably vote for McCain when they see the “C” in his name.

By YOUR NAME HERE

June 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

For everyone thinking that we can magically lower gas prices by drilling INTENTIONALLY protected areas… YOU ARE IDIOTS.

I overheard some guys (wearing UGA hats) talking about how they were going to “hurt dem terrists by only gettin’ that der non-middle eastern oil”

HA! HA! I say!

how are you gonna buy non-middle eastern oil? It is a fungible commodity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

Its a world wide limited supply, buying it from exxon and not from shell doesn’t hurt “the terrorists”. If exxon buys it from russia, shell won’t be able to and will have to buy oil from opec. If shell buys from russia, exxon will have to buy it from opec.

the only way to hurt “dem terrists” is to reduce the price of oil! either by increasing supply or decreasing demand!

Increasing supply means getting opec to drastically increase their daily production (which only hurts them), because the magical anwar or gulf drilling is only a drop in the bucket for the USA.

Decreasing demand means… omg, wait for it… using less gas! reducing trips, getting rid of your suv, researching hybrids and other greener alternatives… or heaven forbid walking!

Try explaining all this to some bubbas wearing UGA T-shirts!

By Midori

June 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

RW’s favorite news source: Hot Air!!

coincidence? LOLOL!!!!

I think not.

For all you so-called geniuses following your failure masquerading as a president’s lead: how come the GOP can block bills denying health care for children, stem cell research and unemployment benefits for the needy, yet they are impotent when it comes to helping to change anything remotely associated with energy legislation?

I know, I know — it’s all a plot!!!

Blame the communist democrats!!!

Bush came into office pointing fingers at Bill Clinton and the democrats (remember the missing “w’s” on keyboards story that turned out to be a big, fat lie?), and true to form, he’s still at it.

Original thought, heck — even rational thought — is not his forte.

And you guys continue to grab the baton and run with it.

Must suck to be a blind lemming.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Perhaps we should simply elect McCain to continue the Bush legacy. Then we can really put downward pressure on the Dollar. We’ve already spent over $500 BILLION in Iraq trying to prevent Saddam from using his WMD’s. And McCain wants us to stay there.

But I was told that the War would be financed with Iraqi oil revenues. Or was that just typical media exaggeration? Nope…I did hear that. But nothing has been done to really help improve the economy. Wait, let’s suspend federal tax on gasoline. Huh?

Then McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. That’s REAL smart. Cut revenues while continuing to spend money on a foolish war. Reflects his true understanding of economics. Bottom of his class, right? Must be better than electing someone who was at the top of his class, and earned everything he has rather than getting it via privilege.

Yup…we dumbed down the Presidency once, so why not do it again!

By UGA T-Shirt Wearer

June 19, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Ain’t NO ONE, NOW HOW, NO WAY gonna tell me what to do!

Drivin’ my big ol’ truck is my God-given right as an American.

When are you panty-waisted commies gonna realize that “green” is just TOO D@MN MUCH EFFORT!

As long as there’s someone somewhere that can suffer the consequences of MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to waste and pollute and destroy then who cares?

GROW UP!

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

RW,

The Republicans had a majority in the House, Senate, and had the White House - just a couple of years ago - if it was so important to them, they should have lifted the bans.

Of course it is all about politics, but Bush’s lashing out at the Democrats yesterday was pretty ludicrous. But, you know how I feel about the guy.

Anyway, I agree with getalife @12:50.

Thanks for the article. Sadly, I think he’s right - and I’m no stock market genius, but it really seems to me that the speculation component in all this - well - I think it should be illegal.

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

N-GA @ 1:27 - Indeed!

Bush’s energy policy - war!

Do you know if President Obama could order (don’t know if that’s the right word) Cheney to disclose the National Energy Policy Development Group documents after Cheney leaves office? I’m no executive orders/privledge expert either.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Please try to comprehend the following: It takes 60 Senators to be able to get a bill to a vote, Republicans never had that number and Democrats are telling us everyday that they can’t get things done for the very same reason.

If I said the exact same thing you did at 1:31, finch would be in here within five minutes giving me one of his drunken lectures.

By getalife

June 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Number one rule in politics, never ever trust a politician.

It is so bad now you have to think like a criminal to know what they are doing.

Iraq is the solution to the oil crises and Iran is next. Then Africa and any oil producing country should be scared of the criminals in Washington.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

I don’t know if there is market manipulation going on in the oil market. But remember the Hunt brothers who tried to corner the silver market in 1980. Silver hit a high of $48.70/oz. What a disaster.

Greed is an amazing thing…weren’t the Hunts from Texas? Mere coincidence, I’m sure.

BTW, Nelson Bunker Hunt can also claim the following credentials: Sits on the Council of the John Birch Society, past Chairman of the Bible Society of Texas, and past Chairman of the Campus Crusade for Christ International’s Here’s Life Campaign.

Isn’t GREED one of the seven deadly sins?

By Paul

June 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Another example of a person with the capability who did not fulfill his potential. In this regard, I’ve maintained he’s in the same league as Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton. And the leadership of the Congresses.

So he lashes out and Congress lashes out. Amazing - the country is in a time of critical need and leadership of both Parties revert to form - digging in their heels, fingerpointing and blaming.

Change may be in the offing for the Executive. But I think Congress may be just plain hopeless.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

How does keeping tax rates at the same levels they are today equate to cutting revenues?

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Hmmm -

Jay Bookman’s got a pretty interesting column about the same topic.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Midori 1:20

No one blocked stem cell research. Just using taxpayer money. Private institutions can do all the research they want.

But to the gist of your post: do you think the Democratic Congress will lead an effort to cut corn subsidies to Agribusiness and eliminate the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol?

N-GA 1:27

Was listening to a roundtable discussion on NPR the other day on candidates’ economic policies. Both sides opened with “the candidates seem to be reverting to standard Party boilerplate.”

Sighhhhhhh

N-GA 1:51

And remember what happened to the Hunt borthers? The Feds indicted them. Sounds like a good precedent to me.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Some new logos are already being designed for when the Obambi/Pooh Bear administration takes office. As Michelle notes, please put down those beverages before clicking the link. I’ll link the philosophical musing of the VP candidate.

“When you are a Bear of very little brain and you think of things, you find sometimes that a thing which seems very thing-ish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

Obambi/Pooh ‘08

No matter!

By Bosch

June 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I think you’re right on about Congress. It’s just plain depressing to think about sometimes. Is that “girly” to admit to being depressed sometimes? Apparently saying someone makes you sick is effeminate - who knew?

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

CHANGE!!!

Lt. Colonel William Russell is a decorated combat veteran who has served in Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and the Pentagon on 9/11.

{{{{{He’s a Republican, and he came home to run against Jack Murtha in November but they kicked him off the ballot.}}}}

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

{{{{{It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.}}}}}- Obambi without a teleprompter

{{{{{This is a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism. In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended).}}}}}-Andrew McCarthy (the lead prosecutor of the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack)

The convicted spiritual mentor of the 1993 WTC bombers is Omar Abdel-Rahman (“the blind sheikh”). According to Obama, the blind sheikh was “incapacitated” and therefore rendered harmless by his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, however, with the assistance of attorney Lynne Stewart, Abdel-Rahman continued to wage jihad, issuing instructions to his followers in Egypt. Stewart has been convicted for the assistance she lent to Abdel-Rahman, but she remains at liberty. (I wrote about my own close encounter with Stewart while she was under indictment in “Face to face with Lynne Stewart.”)

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Iraq, and Big Oil, and no-bid contracts … oh my

By Soothsayer

June 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Just a few hundred years ago, you would be burned at the stake for even mentioning that the Sun and Moon and all of the planets did not revolve around the Earth. Even though Galileo and Copernicus could PROVE the opposite they dare not go against church dogma.

And so it today, Pope Rush and his Cardinals Hannity, Billo, and Bortz have issued the pronunciamento that drilling will solve your problems. Anyone with the audacity to speak counter to the official dogma (even though they can prove otherwise) are “burned at the stake” by ridicule.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Which is why men die before women.

And 90 percent of married men die before their wives. Just don’t tell your wife that.

RW-(the original) ok, you too, ITN, as you seemed outraged by the Air Force’s tanker decision -

A few years back Congress changed the laws that forced us to buy military hardware here - even if foreigners had a better product. The troops benefitted.

But look who wants to put politics above all else:

[[This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.

Boeing-backer Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) says he is working with House defense appropriations chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) for Dicks to introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill preventing the award of the U.S. Air Force tanker replacement program to Northrop Grumman/EADS.]]

Competition? Best value for the taxpayers? National interest? Which Party is it, again, who’s the “only one” in the back pocket of Big Corporations?

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

RW,

I believe that the suggestion that cutting taxes increases revenues is a myth. The only time it works is when Capital Gains taxes are cut. Then investors, seeing an opportunity, sell their profitable holdings and pay reduced taxes thus creating an artificial bubble of increased taxes. When Capital Gains taxes are raised, those same investors sell holdings that are under water and take the loss against earned income thus having a negative impact on revenues.

But changes in Federal Withholding taxes simply have a direct impact on revenues.

By Copyleft

June 19, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

RW: So, you’re saying Osama bin Laden HAS been captured, just as Bush swore to do?

I wonder why nobody reported that interesting turn of events. Probably a “liberal media,” no doubt….

By Paul

June 19, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

ITN 2:33

For all the talk about the evil Bush Administration bullying other countries and imposing America’s will -

why do you want to dictate to a sovereign nation how they should conduct business?

ITN 2:40

Do you REALLY suggest that ANY Democratic Party official would work to shut down MoveOn? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

ITN 2:42

This is getting tedious.

From yesterday: “By Paul

June 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

ITN 4:54

Yawn. Rudy’s remarks were 1994. He was operating under Fed rules. Circumstances have changed. We’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. He’s changed his opinion. He’s suggesting Obama hasn’t. The link did not refute that.

But an earlier post of mine did -”

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I am so glad I can keep you busy all day commenting on my posts!

Thank you so much for your attention!

I promise to keep you even busier as the election draws nearer.

Tedious?

From Mr. Vacillating Vacuous?

A compliment!

By Midori

June 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

ITN:

Want to see something completely hilarious?

over at Paul’s favorite site, something is afoot!!!

where’s Sherlock Holmes when you need him????? :)

By Paul

June 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

ITN

“Tedious” referred to posting the same thing twice in two days. I know you think the masses need education, but really…

Vacillating? When? Or were you simply fascinated with yourself?

Midori

Favorite site? Puhleeze - I’ve used it a couple times - comes to the top of Google and it loads pretty fast without a bunch of popups.

I’m glad you’ve learned that just because it’s “on the Internet” it’s not necessarily true, nor valid -

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Midori

Saw that….

Paul (is it really Paul?) would NEVER visit such a partisan site for info. (Would he???)

You know how he ridicules those.

By Midori

June 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Yah, ITN!!

Puhleeze……..

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Is it just me but when pushed doesn’t he always wimp out….?

Talk about tedious, he’s seldom worth the effort!

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

The tax cut myth has been repeatedly debunked by conservatives, liberals, democrats and republicans. I’m sure you could even find some communists, socialists, anarchists, Trotskyites, and even some cross-dressers who will admit that cutting taxes will not result in sustained revenue increases. They may help to briefly stimulate a lagging economy, but usually by the time the benefits kick in, the economy has already begun to turn itself around.

By Fred

June 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Bushdrunk and McShame each visiting flood-ravaged Iowa this day. tying up personnel, resourses, space, time for a cheap photo-op. Disgusting scum.

By IN THE NEWS

June 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

FROM Firedoglake

Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing By: Jane Hamsher Thursday June 19, 2008 12:52 pm [digg]

Obama has opted out of public financing. Which is really the only sensible thing he could do, unless he thinks the broken FCC and the duplicitous McCain are going to somehow magically change overnight.

McCain opted into the public financing system for the primary, then when it didn’t suit his purposes he opted out. When FCC chairman David Mason said McCain couldn’t just do that without the permission of the FCC, Bush had Mason removed. Like every other arm of the federal government Bush lays his hands on, the FCC is now politicized for the benefit of the GOP. This is the organization Obama is supposed to trust to oversee a fair election?

John McCain has already showed his contempt for the public financing system, and paid no penalty for it. (That’s why we filed our FEC complaint against him.) What happens if he opts in now for the $85 million his campaign badly needs, and then breaks the law? Is the FCC suddenly going to transform itself into a vigilant protector of truth, justice and the American way?

Unlikely.

So for Obama to enter into a system that the GOP has strategically gamed on McCain’s behalf would be…well, stupid.

It’s nice to see a Democrat refusing to kick the Republican football.

WELL SAID JANE!

By Paul

June 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

ITN 3:42

Oh, I forget to mention, you are welcome - but it’s no trouble at all. Commenting on your posts takes very little effort -

ITN 4:16

Specifics, please? Seems I’m the one who’s advocated cutting the military and pulling back, worldwide, from our military bases, while you advocate expanded military spending and a continuation of our presence worldwide.

Possibly then you could reference a posting of just one of your original thoughts?

N-GA

Much of it strikes me as avoidance of how to view taxes - and I don’t mean simply as a taking.

As I’ve noted, many view gov’t as a separate entity that generates its money and passes it around. Then people get upset when they don’t get their fair share. They don’t accept that the people pay so when they say “the government” they really mean “I’d like my fellow citizens to pay for…”

Which is fine. If there’s consensus on something that promotes the general welfare.

But taxes are also used to promote policy. Redistribute wealth. Buy support. Dems do it with various special interest groups. Reps, too - tho they tend towards the business side, it seems.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I didn’t say a word about cutting taxes raising revenues. You said McCain wanted to keep the tax rates where they are and that was cutting revenues. Would you like another chance to explain that?

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

RW,

If you’re referring to my 1:27, I said that McCain wanted to make the tax cuts permanent.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

{{{{{{A number of those responsible for September 11 have been captured or killed, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh and others.}}}}}

Copycat @ 2:51,

If that sentence really confuses you, you probably shouldn’t be posting your ignorance in a public forum.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Actually here’s what you said.

{{{{Then McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. That’s REAL smart. Cut revenues while continuing to spend money on a foolish war.}}}}

The only way to interpret that is that keeping the tax rates where they are will cut revenue.

By Rubber Woman

June 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

RW,

Big Boy, is our date still on for tonight?

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

Realizing that both candidates are changing positions daily, the fact is that McCain voted against the tax cuts (one of only two Republicans to do so), but now wants to make the cuts permanent.

Now that is simply the most egregious example of election year political posturing. He is terrified that his donor base will dry up if he remains true to his beliefs.

When he first voted against the cuts, he said: “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Two years later, another tax-cut bill came to the floor, and McCain again voted against it, citing a rising deficit.

Obama wants to keep the tax cuts with the exception of the top 1-2% of income earners.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

RW,

First, the post was sarcastic. Second, you may choose to interpret the sentence as you wish. I’m confident that you understand the point and have nothing to say to refute it, the inference being that you agree.

The tax cut did cut revenues. The war does cost money. Less coming in while more going out. Sound economics?

By Midori

June 19, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

80% SAY US HEADED IN WRONG DIRECTION

Now who is the “fringe”?

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

If all you’ve got is spinning and dodging why even bother to address the question?

Personally I think all tax cuts or increases should be “permanent” and we all know that’s the wrong word anyway. Anytime a politician wants to raise or lower taxes they should have to make their case rather than just hide away and let a sunset clause do their dirty work.

By @@

June 19, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

(((Now who is the “fringe”?)))

The leftists.

By Tony

June 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

I have no problem with McCain’s age. It isn’t that he’s too old - it’s that his ideas are too old. His demonstrated mindset and rotted Repug leck of values and foresight and decency are too old and totally destuctive. Watch the U.S. spin ever downwards.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

RW,

There was a time when you actually had something to say on this blog. Now you just leave that to the rest of us while you act as blog “mother”, looking for miss-spelled words and dangling participles.

Maybe you should “getalife”!

By Paul

June 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

ITN 4:25

What a shame. I was hoping we’d see Obama demonstrate principled leadership in situations such as these.

N-GA 5:01

That will go down as one of the bad decisions of the campaign. Keeping the cuts, except at the very top, oh, half of a percent, would have made much more sense.

Then again, Obama thinks thinks the middle class makes upwards of $250,000 a year…

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I never look for misspelled words except in posts where someone is simultaneously trying to denigrate someone else’s intelligence.

I asked you a legitimate question and you have no answer to explain your ridiculous assertion that leaving tax rates where they are will lower revenue.

There was a time when you could actually debate your points……no wait a second, there never was. My bad.

Later!

Parrot,

Count me among the 80% Any country that starts stacking their government with a flock of moonbats and is on the verge of electing a Marxist as President is definitely on the wrong track.

Later to you too!

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Midori June 19, 2008 5:16 PM 80% SAY US HEADED IN WRONG DIRECTION Now who is the “fringe”?}}}}

Open the link and read it:

{{{{Six in ten of those who chose wrong track blamed the struggling economy, with gasoline prices hovering above $4 a primary reason. “Poor leadership” accounted for 23 percent, while 20 percent said the war in Iraq.}}}}

Hey, I can’t stand the dhimmokrat controlled Congress either, with their mindless energy policies that have gas prices so high.

What do you know, I’m in the majority.

And check this out, 80% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction in Iraq.

Uh-oh, little dhimmikrats, bad news for you.

Bwa.

By Ralph

June 19, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

N-GA: I like that. RW being “blog mother.” Well, he certainly is at least a “mother…….

By MorningStar

June 19, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

By Bosch June 19, 2008 8:56 AM I heard Bush’s speech yesterday blasting the Democrats for not lifting the ban to drill off-shore - he said the rise in fuel prices are the Democrats fault.

It is late to be scanning the comments, but here goes. Just how is fuel prices the Democrats fault? Huh? Huh? Does anyone have the REAL DEAL on how much of the oil we already drill in Alaska goes to Japan, Korea, China. Almost everything I’ve read recently states about 80+ percent. So how will the meager remainder releave our pain in the drain?

By ali baba June 19, 2008 9:08 AM why didn’t he start developing alternative realities back in the 70’s?

I believe Paul commented on this one, indicating ‘he’ was in school. My believes Ali Baba the magic one intended to state “Why didn’t they?” You know “They.” Remember ole Jimmy Carter told us in 1977 what would happen. Politics dictated that we (or they) chose to ignore the warnings.

By Paul June 19, 2008 9:13 AM ali baba Possibly because he was a student in the 70s?

Yep, it was Paul. I believe one of THEY in the White House in the 80’s removed all the solar panels installed in ole Jimmah’s time. You go THEY!!!

By N-GA June 19, 2008 1:27 PM | But I was told that the War would be financed with Iraqi oil revenues. Or was that just typical media exaggeration? Nope

N-GA, if we could expand offshore drilling, we could send more oil to Iraq! Now ain’t that genuis?

By Paul

June 19, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Morningstar 5:56

“if we could expand offshore drilling, we could send more oil to Iraq! Now ain’t that genuis?”

For 500 bil they can pay for it -

By @@

June 19, 2008 6:04 PM | Link to this

and 80% of Southern Baptist ministers are supporting McCain.

Never fear! Barack is having behind the scenes, closed door meetings with evangelicals and catholics, in an effort to win their favor.

I guess it’s all hush hush ‘cause he doesn’t want the secular progressives to know.

Everybody was doin’ the 80 thing so I though….

By Paul

June 19, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

@@ 6:04

Is he going to make the minutes of his secret meetings public?

By MorningStar

June 19, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

By Paul June 19, 2008 6:01 PM Morningstar 5:56 “if we could expand offshore drilling, we could send more oil to Iraq!

For 500 bil they can pay for it -

I don’t think they’ll be paying for anything. We’ll be using the oil in hot persuit of our ‘lost efforts’ in Iraq.

By N-GA

June 19, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Now that is a question that is interesting enough to provoke discussion.

If the meetings were held in his capacity a a candidate for public office, then I think they should be private.

If the meetings were held in his capacity as a US Senator, then they should be public unless they are protected under the auspices of national security.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this

MorningStar

Bohica -

By MorningStar

June 19, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

By Bosch June 19, 2008 11:37 AM | Then why didn’t Congress vote to lift the ban when they had the majority? Why the urgency now?

Bosch, I have the same thought every time I hear someone wet their size 10XXX drawers or 48W BVD’s regarding the abortion issue. It was not politically advantageous at the time. As I continuously read here, times do change. Unhuh.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 6:34 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Cutting to the quick and spoiling my fun -

The Cheney energy meetings were to formulate public policy. I still haven’t figured how anything those people said would comprise “frank and open discussion” if made public.

I’m a big believer in Sunshine Laws.

But having said that - and one thing I note no one has connected…

I ALSO think any meetings of Congressmen OR their aides, staff or representatives have with lobbyists or business representatives - or private, even charitable groups, for that matter - should have minutes made and released to the public.

Another area where our “new” Congress has failed to lead -

Got that, ITN, Midori?

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 6:42 PM | Link to this

I’m in the majority again:

{{{{WASHINGTON, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that one million Americans have signed the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition urging Congress to immediately start drilling for American oil to lower gas prices.}}}}

By MorningStar

June 19, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this

By Paul June 19, 2008 6:24 P Bohica -

I’m afraid this is the position most of the country from incubation to 30 years old will find themselves in for years to come. I’m not so arrogant that I don’t hope I’m proven wrong. Time twill tell.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

The administration sent an energy plan to Congress for Congress to work out a bill that would hopefully reflect most of the energy plan of the administration. If our Congress people are too stupid to figure out what parts of a plan are good and what parts are bad without knowing where the suggestions came from then we need new Congress people. The “secret Cheney energy meeting” is just a diversion.

MorningStar,

I know almost no Republicans and certainly no conservatives that would want the U.S. Congress to outlaw abortion. It should be decided legislatively, but at the state level.

By Paul

June 19, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this

MorningStar

Sad, isnt’ it. As noted yesterday - it’s not just the Pres. It’s also Congress and every American who wants more and wants someone else to pay. Unfortunately, that ‘someone else’ is largely, as you pointed out, the thirtysomethings and under who will pay.

Will I take a delay in getting Social Security by even six months? Heck yes. An indexing of benefits more accurately reflecting living costs for that demographic? Sure. Two small examples with enormous consequences.

But it’s all the other stuff - bloated Farm Bills, Programs that have outlived their usefulness, a Federal bureaucracy who forgets their purpose is to serve, not to get ever more money to do nice things for themselves.

Too late for a soapbox. Pleasant evening, all -

By MorningStar

June 19, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this

By RW-(the original) June 19, 2008 6:50 PM know almost no Republicans and certainly no conservatives that would want the U.S. Congress to outlaw abortion. It should be decided legislatively, but at the state level.

FYI, I know many democrats who are very conservative on this subject, and some who believe everything should be status quo. From a personal standpoint, I wish they’d do whatever the spirit so moves them, and SHUT UP. I’m for expending the energy and money concerning education, health care, and jobs, among other things.

By @@

June 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Is he gonna make his meetings public?

Give him a couple of “minutes” so he can ahhh…uhmmm…you know…

Reporting from the Middle East on that “progressive dinner” taking place:

But something has changed in the past few weeks. Long-stalled negotiations are bearing fruit. Agreements are taking shape. Most striking, Arab leaders known for their rejectionist rhetoric are beginning to speak of Israel as a potential partner in peace.

(((Some of their talk is startlingly bold. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, interviewed by a newspaper in India earlier this month, discussed why he thinks Israelis “have decided to move toward peace.” That’s new. Up to now he hasn’t been known to acknowledge that Israel wanted peace at all.)))

(((Days later, Assad’s deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, spoke to the Chicago Tribune about the peace he sees taking shape — “when people can move freely between Syria, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt.” Damascus, Mekdad said, has been warning Hamas and Hezbollah that Syria is “not like Iran.” Iran, he said, “believes in the destruction of Israel, while Syria believes in negotiating with Israel.”)))

Damn! That last statement from Assad’s deputy foreign minister WAS bold.

Maybe they’ve arrived at the house of desserts.

Stratfor who usually views all these talks with cautious optimism is more optimistic than cautious of late.

Yummy.

Iranian fruitcake was not on the menu.

By RW-(the original)

June 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Link to this

{{{{{“We know that more than half of all Black children live in single-parent households. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison,” he said, as his wife Michelle and two daughters listened from the front row.}}}}}—Obambi on Father’s Day

We’re certainly inclined to believe that the absence of a father makes a child likelier to run afoul of the law, but can it really be true that fatherless children are 20 times as likely to end up in prison but only five times as likely to commit crimes? That would mean criminals from intact families get away with their crimes three times as often as those raised by single mothers.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Link to this

Ah-ha, forgot to shut the lights off, did we?

{{{{Iraqi security forces launched a crackdown on Shi’ite militias in the southern city of Amara on Thursday, the latest drive in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s campaign to impose order in Iraq.}}}}

{{{{Amara, home to 250,000 people, is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army militia of anti-American Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Witnesses saw police raiding houses of suspected militants, backed by U.S. troops in armored vehicles blocking roads.}}}}

{{{{There appeared to be no resistance and residents said they had not heard one gunshot, but some Sadr aides said members of his political movement were being unfairly targeted.}}}}

Unfairly targeted!

Sniff, sniff, boo, hoo, hoo.

I detect a pattern here, Iraq security forces stomp Mookie’s army, Mookie whines, thee Urinal/DNC says that Iraq is lucky that Mookie is “cooperating,” cause if he didn’t, then, everything would be lost!

Ain’t that right, AJC?

By P. Snackenburg

June 19, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this

Concerning the cartoon of Lincoln giving Obama a “thumbs up”: in reality, Lincoln was a rabid racist and would have been appalled.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

 

Kudzu.com: Mosquitos are breeding. Ready for the bites?
Today's deal from DealSwarm.com
AJC Breaking News Updates