Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > June > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPuzzle: What change is Obama?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The headline in the morning AJC over a story about Barack Obama meeting with his newly assembled national security advisory group is this: “Obama turns to Clinton advisers.”
For those who feared that Obama represented the second term of Jimmy Carter, it was reassuring. There she was, semi-well preserved, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, along with Warren Christopher and former Defense Secretary William Perry, all from Team Clinton, the administration that declined to take custody of Osama bin Laden in 1996. Not enough evidence to indict, they thought.
Former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn was there, too,of course, along with former U.S. Sen. David Boren and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton.
On national security, it’s reassuring that the change Obama represents is no more radical than that wrought by old school Democrats. Obama could be in a position where his decisions could plague this nation, and the world, for generations to come. It’s reassuring, therefore, to see that the “change” he promises is yesterday’s.
It does bring up a question, though. Has anybody heard a policy statement from Obama that represents anything other than yesterday’s approaches to anything? Taxes, no. Social spending, no. Bi-partisanship, no. Energy, no. Obama’s a new soundbox affixed to an old agenda The problem is that much of the country seems to be unaware of the 60s and 70s, while many of those who are still cling to the era. The old-timers of the flower-children generation want one last Woodstock on the White House grounds before they go.
But the question, really, is to identify something in Obama’s promise of “change” that represents actual change.
Comments
By TW
June 19, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
Has ever a candidate ruined it for another member of their party more than ‘w’ has for McCain? It started off in 2000, South Carolina, when ‘w’s team told everyone about an adulterous affair McCain had with a black woman than brought about an illegitimate daughter. And then, well, let’s face it, nothing has cut the legs out from beneath McCain’s run in 2008 more than ‘w’s abortion of a presidency. Jesus Christ couldn’t win as a republican in 2008.
Real shame the republican party continues to support ‘w’s defilement of a war hero. The party of the true conservative would have a problem with this. Where did it go?
By Craig
June 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Ahh the RNC attack of the day, faithfully transmitted by Mr. Wooten.
“Change? Change? We don’t want not stinkin’ change! Four more years of Bush policies!”
I’d be thrilled with change back to the policies of the ‘90’s, without the drama of course. Balanced budgets, smart foreign policy, common sense economic plans, and economic growth for America.
Obama ‘08….
By Redneck Convert
June 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Well, thanks to my TV getting shot up I needed to borrow a newspaper to catch up on things and read what I could find on my PC.
It looks to me like this Obama is finished. If you like drilling in Alaska and off shore, McCain’s your man. If you don’t like it, he’s still your man on account of he’s said he didn’t like it. If you don’t like My President’s tax cuts, McCain’s your man. If you do like them, McCain’s still your man on account of he now says he wants them.
You can’t beat a man like old man McCain. No matter how you look at the issues he agrees with you. You can always find something he’s said that flat-out says what you think.
I almost feel sorry for this Obama. He’s spending jillions on running and he’s got no chance going against a man that just slides into your mind nice and easy. Not to mention Obama’s one of Those People. When good White people get into the voting booth you just know they ain’t going to vote for one of them. People say they ain’t got nothing against Those People, but the Old Ways die hard. When it gets right down to it they think the same way us rednecks think. Only they are too scared to admit it.
Anyway, you can bank on McCain getting elected. No matter how you see things you can find something he’s said that agrees with you. So he ought to be getting around 90% of the vote come November. Maybe this Obama can get in one of them white outfits and serve the coffee in the White House.
Have a good day everybody.
By Shawny
June 19, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
you know, I have always thought this too. By default, we will get change. There will be a new president very unlike the last, no matter which is elected. Far left partisans like to paint McCain as Bush III, but that is inaccurate at best. Obama has uttered the word ‘change’ probably a million times since his campaign started, but what is he specifically going to do. It is working for him, though, as when Hillary added details and everyone figured out what she was going to do, it didn’t sit too well with voters. The abiguous approach is working for Big O.
Watch very carefully as he slides from the left to the left center, now that Hillary is out of the way. The first indication of this was in how he backpeddled on NAFTA. Look for more hints.
By Fred
June 19, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
Since when is any politician from any party a “Change”. They are all just career con artists….
By Fix-It
June 19, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
I wish you guys would get this correct, even CNN got it right. McCain was separated for almost a year before he met his current wife. Do liberals believe that if they keep repeating a lie it will become true? And even better this blog is about Obama’s change or lack there of, so I am confused TW, how did you get to your misconceptions about McCain from the change that Obama is not proposing? That is what smoking pot will do; you can’t seem to stay on track.
By fearless fosdik
June 19, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten:
I’ll leave it to Jack Cafferty, and his observation yesterday on CNN.
“If John McCain doesn’t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur.”
By AH
June 19, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
It smells like BO in here. Can someone open up the window we need to change the air to something fresh.
By Copyleft
June 19, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Yeah, it would be a shame to switch from bad policies that have failed to good ones that could work, wouldn’t it?
Because that’s not “REAL change,” in Wooten-land.
By Josh
June 19, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
With the democrats not wanting to drill in alaska and on our shores, why would u vote for one when gas prices are 4.00+ a gallon? I really don’t understand what people see in Obama?
By Tom Ga Huntert
June 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Obama= Carter 4 more years…….McCain= W Bush 4 more years…….Bob Barr= NONE OF THE ABOVE, less bad then the rest….This is not hard to understand.
By PANTHA MAN
June 19, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
OBAMA GOING TO MAKE ALL YOU HATERZ PAY!! YOU WHITE PEOPLE THINK YALL SO BAD BUT NOT IT PAYBACK TIME!! NOW WE GOING TO GET PAID BACK FOR ALL THAT TIME YOU HAD OUR PEOPLE AS YOUR SLAVES!! YALL WILL NEVER GET AWAY WITH THAT AGAIN!! NEVER!!!!!!!!!!
By zeke
June 19, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
Right Jim! Obama is a socialist, liberal, marxist, communist anti American way nut! Witness by the turn to of all things Clinton staffers! What an idiot! Now the true agenda starts to show! Progressive is the new code word to hide their true agenda, socialism!
By CC
June 19, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
I’m ready for any change, as long as it is change. Obama should put George Bush on his advisory panel, ask ol’ pudding head himself a question, any question, then Obama should do the exact opposite of whatever George says he should do. George has been perfect at one thing, being wrong. just turn that around and we got our great country back.
By BFKaJ
June 19, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. My practice is to accept words only to the extent that they do not contradict actions. I think it is fair to suggest that Obama represents a change from an administration that acted firmly against proclaimed enemies of the United States. Rather than install an Islamic Republic, I infer, as suggested by Jim in the morning essay, a reversion to Clintonian foreign policy. Many of us remember that the Clinton years were a period when the Europeans thought we were swell, and the Islamist movement grew into a force that believed it was free to attack US interests anywhere in the world. Of course that was also the period when former President Carter was assigned the task – by President Clinton himself - to give away nuclear technology to the North Koreans, and of course that technology was successfully transferred, with still rippling effects throughout the Middle East. To the extent that Obama suggests he would rein in the wild spending of the Republican era, I believe he lies. That is directly in contrast to his voting record in Congress.
Obama has sent us mixed signals on the free trade, which to me is a threshold measure of economic competence. Either he does or does not wish to renegotiate NAFTA, perhaps the only intelligent international effort of the Clinton administration.
On a second threshold measure, level of taxation, we also see mixed signals. Some recent chatter from the Obama camp suggests that Obama realizes that US tax and regulatory policies have made American-based companies uncompetitive internationally. I think that lesson may have been underscored by Ireland’s slap at the EU last week, the rejection of meaningful EU political power. The Irish know what has fueled their 15 year economic run - the conscious application of Reaganomics – and their rejection of the superior governance of “Old Europe” was pleasantly in character for my ancestors. Is Obama smart enough to renew the Bush tax cuts? I think he is a quick learner, and his every action now suggests he is beginning the Herculean task of softening up the loonies controlling his party, preparing them for the economic necessity. Time is short.
We now suffer an ascendant Supreme Court, arrogating to itself the minutae of war policy. Obama has been conspicuously silent on the bizarre development; who ever heard of an attorney being silent? Will he support appointees of the sort that manufacture “standing” for noncitizens who have never visited the shores of the United States? Does he value those who invalidated the second half of the Fifth Amendment in the Kelo decision. I infer, from his silence, that he does indeed support those horrific and politically unsustainable decisions. A leftist court, irreversible, is the only way Leviathan can impose its will on the United States, as actual political votes on those issues would be punished harshly by voters.
By TW
June 19, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Fix-It - we circle about the toilet today because we have been listening to small minds.
Big minds talk about ideas, average minds about events, small minds about other people. The rightwing ‘media’ has, for the last eight years at least, demonstrated ‘small mind’ tactics. As they are the ones who have had the country’s ear, we must acknowlege that we are where we are as having based our politics on the advice of small minds.
By attacking Obama, Mr. Wooten continues the rush, hannity, o’reilly style of failure ‘reporting’.
The right has been given a war hero to support - why not talk him up rather than put the other guy down?
By Tim
June 19, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Hey Jim,
Didn’t Dick Cheney and “Disco” Don Rumsfeld come from the Regan administration? Why try and cloud the waters with this BS? You guys say there is no experience, but when a team of folks that have made their bones is offered, you call them retreads. Maybe He should get down with Hariett Meyers!!
By ron
June 19, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Good morning all,Since there have been no Democratic Presidential advisors for the past 7 years,who does one think Obama would turn to?Rumsfeld and Rove?I understand his talking to the Clinton advisors.
Change?Obama isn’t going to change unchangeable Washington.He will raise taxes.He will increase social programs.He will increase the deficit.He’ll have a blisteringly wild first hundred days,then the dust will settle and the smoke will clear and America will have to assess wher it stands.First he has to get elected.Anything he says between now and November will be empty words.
tom ga hunter—Barr = dead end,nothing,zip nada.
Redneck,3 inch magnums?
By hirsutedawg
June 19, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Jim, In a career chock full of stupid questions & statements this might be the dumbest question you’ve ever put forth. This Change is not a campaign slogan, it’s about charting a new course and moving in a different direction. It’s about subtle, nuanced thought and who has the ability to restore pride in our great nation. It’s about who can begin the generation long task of un-tarnishing our standing in the world and the re-affirming of our Constitution. I implore anyone who has not already made up their mind to wait until Obama & McCain are side by side discussing the issues. The choice then will become crystal clear. Change indeed.
By opieandy
June 19, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Jesus Christ couldn’t win as a republican in 2008.
Uhhh, JW, Jesus Christ was unpopular and ultimately crucified. Bad example.
By SB
June 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
QUOTE: From Redneck Convert: “Not to mention Obama’s one of Those People. When good White people get into the voting booth you just know they ain’t going to vote for one of them.”
You’re an idiot. A black man named Barack Hussein Obama running up against the whitest of whites Hillary Clinton and beating her…. are you kidding me? Seems to me without WHITEY he’s not on the ballot… she is.
By T
June 19, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
I would like to know where Sen. Obama stands on illegal immigration. Anyone read anything about that? I would prefer my tax dollars go to Americans. Or at least those who are contributing to our economy.
By getalife
June 19, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
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.
Mission Accomplished.
By Just Nasty and Mean
June 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Morn’in Jim et al,
Obama has sweet talked thousands into thinking “Change” is good for them. Well, let’s see:
1) Is it good “Change” to let the Bush tax break on capital gains expire, when he KNOWS it has a negative impact on the economy, employment, corporate expansion, investment etc.?
2) It is good “Change” to withdraw troops from Iraq while on the precipice of victory over Saddam and Al Queda?
3) It it good “Change” for Obama to not strive for energy independence by not drilling when alternative fuels are just not ready yet?
4) Is it good “Change” for Obama to enact a windfall tax on oil companies when he knows the tax will just be added to the cost of fuel?
5) Is it good “Change” for Obama to naively believe he can talk to foreign Islamic radical dictators and lend the credibility of the President’s office of the United States, out of their terroristic actions?
6) Is it good “Change” for Obama to nationalize 14% of the national economy (the healthcare industry) for government control. This is FASCISM people!
You REALLY want this “Change”. If you do, may God help us all since America—as we know it— will be dead.
By Anyone But Hillbama
June 19, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
The only thing that comes to mind when I see the words “change” and “Madeleine Albright” in the same sentence is how often she changes her Depends when they become full of s—t!
By Get Real
June 19, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Leave it to old fart Wootie to keep stirring the pot. Any change is better than what Bush has been offering, and McCain is ever more slightly falling right in line with him. He was Mr. Environment a month ago, now he wants to dril, drill, drill. Being that he gave his energy policy speech to a bunch of Oil Execs in Houston, what should we take from that Wooten? Whose interests does it seems like he would put first? He could’ve stood out in front of any gas station in America, and his intentions would’ve at least appeared more genuine.
Old fart Wooten keeps saying that Obama is inexperienced, but W had one of the most experienced Administrations in history and how did that turn out? Doesn’t make experience all that important when you look at it like that huh? Cheney had decades of ‘experience’ Wooten.
Old farts like Wooten have nothing positive to say about Bush or McCain so its attack the Democrats at all costs. Thats the only way they can win this election. McCain voted in lock step with Bush 95% of the time last year, what should that FACT tell you? You’d think with the passing of Tim Russert that most journalists would take some sort of inventory of themselves and try to present FACTS and be a little more impartial. But know old fart Wooten, being that he can’t say anything positive about his own party he’d rather just tear down the other. How about you do this Wooten:
Research and then explain why every major energy analyst has said that by drilling in ANWR and off the coasts would only produce about 2.5 years of oil, 10 years from now? Remember present the facts.
Explain why/and what legislation did McCain actually vote with Bush 95% of the time. Tell me why I should vote for your party, instead of not voting for the other.
Why is the GOP using nothing but fear to get people to vote for them. What will McCain do about the economy, healthcare, $4 gas, the war. All of his policies are nothing more than status quo George W. Bush failures. He’s yet to say anything about new jobs.
Be an honest journalist (if thats what you are) and not keep spitting the same old recycled crap.
By AH
June 19, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
McCain would love to debate Obama on issues but Obama is afraid to do it. If BO has a speech in front of him then he sounds like the perfect TV president. You ask him a question that he doesn’t have a prepared response for he is like a babbling idiot.
If he were to stand next to McCain in a debate he is going to look like a confused fool. That is why he is hiding from the media and McCain. When is he going to debate McCain, he has set up time every week from this point on. Obama does not want you to know he stands for because he doesn’t stand for anything other than take from the rich and buy votes.
By Geoff
June 19, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
We have heard something new Jim, only he turns away people at his rallies because the are wearing head scarves!
So far, I think that’s the only change I’ve seen, but it’s change I desperately don’t want to believe in.
By AH
June 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Now the coward is breaking his written word that he would use Public Financing. Now that he is getting more money he breaks his word. What kind of President would do that.
By Tom Ga Huntert
June 19, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
ron…….Some of us can see past our nose, you should try.. We are working at the farm this week since it’s only in the mid 90’s, you know deer stand stuff, do you want to join us?? Do you know what a deer fly is?
By Geoff
June 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
We have heard something new Jim, only he turns away people at his rallies because the are wearing head scarves!
So far, I think that’s the only change I’ve seen, but it’s change I desperately don’t want to believe in.
By ron
June 19, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Tom Ga Huntert,I’m an old country boy Tom,well acquainted with farms.Barr has only a slightly better chance of being elected than I do and that’s only because he’s on the ballot.How’s that for seeing past my nose?
By Peter
June 19, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Jim, I think there will be a great WONDERFUL change.
The ideology that brought us the 2.7 Trillion dollar WAR, will be gone.
The Ideology that gave away huge uncontested, overpriced contracts to buddies in the sector having to DO with the WAR. Also allowing theses companies to not only Bilk America, but never push them to finish the JOB, will be gone.
The Ideology that supports Financially a Government that is supposed “Democracy”, but really is based on Religion, and says it is OK to Rape a woman will be gone.
The Ideology that allowed Bin Laden to be FREE, so he could continue to build his Taliban Murdering Army, the actual BIGGEST Terrorist Threat to a secure USA, will be gone.
The Ideology that espouses we are “securing America”, yet give cancer causing FEMA trailers to Americans, and wanting to give control to our US PORTS to foreigners will be Gone.
The Ideology that has America in the LARGEST DEFICIT ever, and created the Largest government EVER will be gone.
The government that has WEAKENED the American Dollar will be gone!
Jim I can go on and on if you would like.
America needs a new path, and clearly New Leaders that really care more about America, than their place in History!
By R_U_KIDDING
June 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Hey PANTHA MAN, I am American Indian, what payback do I get? At least your ancestors where slaves, mine where just killed. If you are looking for slavery payback, please somebody show me a former slave or slave owner, please. 90% of the people here in America did not live here during slavery so they should not be held responsible. So PANTHA MAN, take your racist rants to Obama’s church, they will like you there.
By TW
June 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
getalife - thank you for your information this morning about the big oil accomplishment in Iraq. I’m sure the wide, ignorant, redneck base of the republican party will be ecstatic to hear their promised wealth is in the pipeline. After all, they are part of the spoils…right? I mean, if you voted for the top 1% that makes you part of the top 1%…right? Time to share in the fruits…right?
Morons.
By Fix-It
June 19, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Wow TW, again you can’t seem to keep on track, please stand by your lies, and give some proof to your statements. All the name calling has worked great for you guys on the left, hasn’t it? Why should Wooten support Obama? Because you do? Isn’t that rich? Well for a ½ term senator who voted present more than yes or no, only a bonehead would vote for him.
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a post turtle." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle' was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb thinking put him up there to begin with.By Tom Ga Huntert
June 19, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
ron …Hell I’d vote for you, get on the ballot in the NONE OF THE ABOVE party. You & Bob are better than the above. Got to get out to the swamp, we’ve just drank our last cold beer,, have a great day.
By JeepersCreepers
June 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Copyleft: What bad policies? Is this drive by media? Are bad policies simply a platform not of your political liking?
By ###
June 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Jim, Ms. Albright was born in 1937 and Mr. Christopher was born in 1925. Are we to take your “semi well preserved” comment to mean that Mr. Christopher is not well preserved, or that you think the worth of a woman is in her appearance? By the way, what year were YOU born? And how would you like for someone to refer to the state of your wife’s preservation?
With regard to the rest of your rant for today, you are really showing how out of touch you are by talking about Woodstock and flower children. Get with the times man! Why not bring up the Teapot Dome scandal or the Yazoo Land Fraud? They have just as much relevance to this campaign.
By spankmonkey
June 19, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Hilarity at it’s best…
Obama is dusting off the skeletons of the Clinton years, much like W dusted off the skeletons of the Reagan/Bush 1 years….
Where was your feigned sense of outrage in 2001 Mr.Wooten?
Oh yeah, the candidate you’d have nothing to do with in 2000 is now your man… That cow left the barn a while back my man, I defy you to write about McCain’s hero credentials now, especially after you chose an AWOL, coke sniffin, alcoholic, draft dodger over that hero in 2000. Are conservatives really THAT schitzophrenic???
By Luther
June 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
To ###: Yes, the worth of a woman is all in her appearance and her usefulness to her man. Once her appearance, youthfulness, and usefullness fade, he is free to dispose of her. At that time, she will wither away to a state of past-her-prime purgatory until she leaves this world.
By Curious Observer
June 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
McCain would love to debate Obama on issues but Obama is afraid to do it.
I know it’s difficult for morons to cease being morons, so I’ll use small words to explain why Obama has declined McCain’s “town hall” meetings:
McCain has very little money. He can’t attract enough Republican support to get it. I wonder why that is?
Obama is bringing in tons of money.
McCain wants to get his TV exposure on Obama’s dime. He doesn’t want to spend money he doesn’t have in paying for TV ads.
Obama’s smart enough to know he shouldn’t give McCain free exposure, even though Obama could make McCain look like a bumbling old flip-flopping idiot.
Got it? If you have a natural advantage over an opponent, you don’t give away that advantage.
Now go back to the Tom and Jerry ‘toons.
By Get Real
June 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Why is everyone on here so bent up about the Clinton years? Take away all the scandals and I bet everyone here was in a better economical state than they were now. No $3 Trillion dollar war, gas wasn’t $4 (it was barely over a $1). Please tell me how gas, which was less than a dollar for what seemed like 60 years, can go to over $4 in less than seven. The GOP at work with all this deregulation.
Look up the Fascism in the dictionary.
Fascism- a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Sounds like Bush to me!
By TW
June 19, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Fix-It - you continue to write a thesis on my assertion that small-minded people talk about other people. I don’t think you know you are doing it, so I’ll refrain from asking you what grade you are in. Instead, let me break it down a little more.
You have a war hero to support. You don’t. Instead, you take shots at the other guy. This means you are a sheep, which explains why you may have been sniffing around that rancher instead of helping him or working your own job.
Albeit, I like the thing about the turtle. Do you have anything for a war hero who unexpectedly spends eight years toting water for an incompetent frat boy?
By Maniac is accurate
June 19, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
I’m 45 and I’d like to see Obama or McCain, either one, reach out to some folks for advice who are my age, all the way down to 28. We need some fresh ideas, particularly if they lean libertarian. I lean toward McCain. I don’t see real change, change to lead this country to energy independence and renewed standing in the world in Obama.
By U-MUST-BE-KIDDING
June 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
90% of the people here in America did not live here during slavery so they should not be held responsible. Uh, who are these 10% who are over 140 years old?
By Willie
June 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
GetReal: “Research and then explain why every major energy analyst has said that by drilling in ANWR and off the coasts would only produce about 2.5 years of oil, 10 years from now? Remember present the facts.” That is a LIE! Shame on you liberal spewing lies out to good people.
“Explain why/and what legislation did McCain actually vote with Bush 95% of the time. Tell me why I should vote for your party, instead of not voting for the other.” Just like the liberals they stick together regardless of the good of the nation. However, McCain did break many times from the party on issues. Name me some liberals who broke party lines?
“Why is the GOP using nothing but fear to get people to vote for them.” Remember when the Repubulicans were going to reduce the percentage of increase for food subsidies for schools and you liberals shouted “They are going to starve a children” Is this what you are talking about?
“What will McCain do about the economy, healthcare, $4 gas, the war. ” McCain will do as much as the enviromentalists will allow the liberal congress to do.
All of his policies are nothing more than status quo George W. Bush failures. He’s yet to say anything about new jobs. Hey replace George or Bush with the wacko enviromentlalist and see how it reads.
You profess to be wise and thus became a fool…..
By findog
June 19, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
BFKaJ, To quote your Minor deity, “There you go again.” The reason for out taxation is the requirement to be the supreme military power in the world. Ireland can have lower taxes because they do not maintain an arsenal. Either candidate will be saddled with having to pay for President W. Bush taking us into Iraq. It seams that the greatest stretch of prosperity for all Americans came under the level of taxation established in 1993. The problem with the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 is that they were based on phony logic and were followed by a war of choice and unrelenting spending by President Bush and his GOP held congress. As any Medal of Honor recipient will tell you the moment of truth is, “If not now, when; if not me, who.” So I ask you if we are not going to stand up to our fiduciary obligations as a nation then which generation do you expect to pay for what President Bush and the GOP Congress put on the Treasury’s credit card?
By HA
June 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
AH
You should probably slow your roll. Barack will run circles around McCain in any debate forum, you wait and see. I guess you didn’t see last week how it took McCain about 40 seconds to name the most recognizable opponent that he ran against in the primary. The man is in early stages of SENILITY! He looked like he was about to pass out trying to spit out the name! - LOL
Barack is not accepting Public Finance because the weasel Republicans have been (large donation) fundraising on the sly while Barack was still in the Primary through PACs and RNC, so Barack realizes he would be at a disadvantage. But you fools always fall for the shell game. Barack is no fool. Let me go give this brother another $25 while it’s on my mind CA-CHING!!!
By Customer
June 19, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Wooten has convinced me. I’m voting for McCain. So what if Obama wants to change things. Then what? The change will become status quo, and we’ll only just get sick of the available healthcare, the improved education, the infrastructure upgrades, the stable social security, the world peace, the low price of gasoline and the justice for all, and then we’ll vote for change again and the whole thing will come full circle. There’ll be a lot of yelling and I’m getting too old. Lets just vote for McCain, and forget the whole thing.
Wooten’s piece was well written BTW: The woodstock reference effective. The focus clean. It’s easy when you’ve got nothing to lose, isn’t it, Jim.
Obama 08: It wont be like Woodstock. The change will be more like the Monterey Music Festival when Jimmy Hendrix did all that acid, man.
It was far out.
By Why Don't YOU Get Real
June 19, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
To Get Real: Are you freakin’ kidding me? The only people who were better off during the Clinton years than they are today are those who are on welfare! Everyone else who worked hard has made more money, bought more things, invested more and continued to live a better life every year. Just look at the statistics, stupid! How could anyone say they were better off 8-16 years ago than they are now? Even if you just slacked away during that time, you’re making more and acquiring more things! Sheesh!
By @@
June 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Well Jim, seein’s how the dem’s nominee has had difficulty controlling his signature BMs (Barack’s Moves), I’m guessing A Diaper Change?
By Maniac is accurate
June 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
OK, so if political foreskin is tftt, then I never saw that one coming and I’m not sure how I feel about it. I always thought he was Glenn.
Now if tftt is jacking political foreskin, that is just fooking brilliant and hilarious.
By Dennis Berry
June 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, if you want “change,” then McCain’s obviously your man. He’s changed his position on EVERY important issue in this campaign, from Irag, to treatment of Guantanamo prisoners, to Roe v. Wade, to drilling off the coastlines.
But I assume you like those changes, because he’s now more in line with the “traditional” Republican values (which means ultra-conservative values, now), instead of being the thoughtful pragmatist and occasional rebel he used to be.
Whatever you can say about Senator Obama’s campaign for change, at least it’s consistent. He doesn’t like how partisan divisiveness dominates Washington, how special interests and lobbyists define policies, how all the policies of the past eight years have favored corporations and those who are already wealthy over those of us who still strive.
Fortunately, most of us believe Obama, and recognize that our only hope is the change you ridicule.
The choice is really quite simple: if you want things to stay as they are, support McCain. If you want something else, support Obama.
Most of us are sick unto death of what’s happening now, and we know we need to make a change - a BIG change.
By NS
June 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
I especially like the comment a bit above saying we’re on the precipice of victory in Iraq.
Oh, 2003 called, it wants its claim of victory back.
Seriously, about this war thing, we’re in a deeper hole than when it began…for the low low price of the lives of several thousand troops (I don’t even know what the count is up to, these days). It must have been Ann Coulter who posted that comment above. Man, I don’t see why she doesn’t do stand-up comedy for a living. She’s hilarious with those extremist right rants about how awesomely super cool the war is.
I just figured I’d throw my 2 cents in there for the people that think we’re actually making any form of progress in Iraq by staying there.
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Here’s Wooten’s daily attack on Obama. He obviously doesn’t see anything positive about McCain, so he’s going to keep hammering Obama. How about a column regarding McCain’s positions?
OH, right, his positions change so often, by the time the column went to press, he would have changed it.
By NS
June 19, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
I especially like the comment a bit above saying we’re on the precipice of victory in Iraq.
Oh, 2003 called, it wants its claim of victory back.
Seriously, about this war thing, we’re in a deeper hole than when it began…for the low low price of the lives of several thousand troops (I don’t even know what the count is up to, these days). It must have been Ann Coulter who posted that comment above. Man, I don’t see why she doesn’t do stand-up comedy for a living. She’s hilarious with those extremist right rants about how awesomely super cool the war is.
I just figured I’d throw my 2 cents in there for the people that think we’re actually making any form of progress in Iraq by staying there.
By Get Real
June 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Willie you should get cable on that antenna in your trailer. Even your ‘analysts’ on Faux have said that it would take 10 years to produce any oil from ANWR or the coasts, would decrease a gallon of gas by less that $.06 cents, and would not have any impact on the current cost.
Tell me exactly what ‘significant’ bills where McCain has broken with Bush, and I can show you with FACT where he has embraced the same policy he once opposed. DRILLING IS ONE OF THEM, you twit! I see you’ve never heard of the Obama-Coburn (REPUBLICAN) bill that led to the transperancy of government spending. You know, the bill that stopped no-bid FEMA contracts after Katrina. Get your facts before you start acting like Wooten and just saying anything.
Show me with FACT where the Repubulicans were going to reduce the percentage of increase for food subsidies for schools. Where they going to pass the bill and not fund it like No Child Left Behind? Prove it to me. Everything I stated in my post that you quoted can be backed up with fact, not rhetoric.
“The Department of Energy, our own department of Energy, has said, if you drill in Alaska, first of all, you won’t see any results at the pump for 10 years. And after 20 years, you might see a reduction of two cents per gallon. - USA TODAY
Don’t play me slick Willie.
By fairy god mother
June 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
By SB
June 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
SB..I hate to tell you this, but you are the TRUE IDIOT for not recognizing satire when you read it!
By Get Real
June 19, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
For all you lemmings that believe drilling would solve all our problems. You too Willie.
The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department’s independent analytical arm, estimated that if Congress had cleared Bush’s ANWR drilling plan the oil would have been available to refiners in 2011, but only at a small volume of 40,000 barrels a day — a drop in the bucket compared with the 20.6 million barrels the U.S. consumes daily.
At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020, according to the EIA.
The extra supplies would have cut dependence on foreign oil, but only slightly. With ANWR crude, imports would have met 60 percent of U.S. oil demand in 2020, down from 62 percent without the refuge’s supplies.
-Reuters
By Disgusted
June 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
The new McCain slogan:
I WAS AGAINST IT BEFORE I WAS FOR IT
By CC
June 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
you can talk about ANWR all you want, you can talk about offshore drilling all you want, or even talk about building more refineries. you can demonize anyone that doesn’t automatically and mindlessly fall in line like they’re ‘supposed to’ by calling them names like the one that’s is worse than the devil himself…’liberal’…ooooo, scary. but the truth is, it’s not about oil stupid! oil is not the answer, the best way for our country to move forward is by thinking smart. trying something different, alternative energy, all the old ideas we had before we got hooked on oil. we can be self-sufficient, hell if Brazil made it happen, we can do it somehow. and we have to get ourselves away from doing business with those idiots that just want to fight in the middle east. oil is not the answer. but the oil companies and their buddies want you to keep thinking it is.
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
Since Wooten likes to demonize the 1970’s and Jimmy Carter, how about this? President Carter urged us to conserve gas; develop alternative energy sources; the speed limit was lowered to 55, and people bought economy cars.
What if we had explored alternatives 30 years ago, didn’t embrace SUV’s, and kept driving at a reasonable speed. Would we be in the mess we’re in today?
By Dutchman
June 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
It has come to my attention, that the less a leftie has in the way of facts, the more the whine scream and stomp their feet.
When they have real data, they can have discussions like normal folks.
It reminds me of the old Soviet Union.
But, then again, the threat of nationalizing the oil industry also sounds like the old Soviet Union, and Dictator for life(almost, damn fair elections) Hugo Chavez.
Clinton was a crooked President, period. The deals with the Chinese for our technology, the selling of nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to “patrons”. The scandal over going into Kosovo without the UN approval. The Somalia incident, the lack of support for our folks on the ground. And of course, using the intern staff as a new version of the Dating Game. I will not even get into the Vince Foster scandal, Ron Brown (laugh then cry) funeral and many more.
By getalife
June 19, 2008 11:26 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 mac
June 19, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
at several times in recent history the republicans had a president and were in complete control of congress, once in the 80’s and in bush’s first term. why did they not do anything to stop entitlement programs when they had the chance, when they were in control? the government dole actually hurts those that receive it more than it helps them. politicians know this, politicians want to continue the cycle of poverty for select groups, it helps to keep them down. a no republican should complain about any entitlement programs until they are willing to end the two biggest entitlement programs in history that they started: illegal immigration and the iraq war. sweep around your own back door first.
By Fix-It
June 19, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Hey, TW, as most liberals you still do not answer any questions and still support a junior senator who has no voting record, present is not a vote. Present means I am way too stupid to make a competent decision. Change means that I will get the Clinton rejects to help me out now. Change for Obama means let me get some help from the old guys, the ones he keeps saying he will be different from, what???? So tell me how many times McCain voted present? How about never! So you are correct, I will give McCain his dues, I support 80% of his voting record in congress that means longer than ½ of a term. So again why do you support Obama, and why do you repeat known lies about McCain? Hey TW did I confuse you with a 2 part question? I can break in to 2 questions if that will help.
HA, if Obama will run circles around McCain in a debate, why won’t he do the weekly debates on national television as McCain invited him to do? Can you say chicken?
U-MUST-BE-KIDDING, sorry my typo, 90% of the people here now are not even related to people that owned slaves, and came to America well after slavery. To be honest the percentage of people living here today that are decedents of slave owners may be much smaller. Is that better for you?
By change
June 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
private financing of his campaign no special interest money no lobbyist taking over his campaign Not born with a gold spoon in his mouth Not married to a millionaire
The change is that he is smart, self made and not controlled by the usual puppet masters in Washington
By deegee
June 19, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
The discussion around drilling in North America for oil is sheer politics. Our administration has known for 8 years that the solution to the problem of oil supply was right around the corner. It just took them a little longer than they thought it would to reap the rewards. It’s a very bright horizon for the American oil companies and the politicians that pulled off a big hoax on the American public still reeling from the 9/11 attacks. We were had by the Bush/Cheney oil machine. How many more are going to die in the battle to award no-bid Iraqi contracts to the American oil companies?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php
By findog
June 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
mac, in the 80’s the GOP only had the senate. wasn’t until 94 they got all of congress…
By ghost rider
June 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
By Dutchman
June 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
DUTCHMAN…you talk about facts! But, you don’t seem to have any…Somalia was King George I liability. Remember now? Clinton turned the operation over to the U.N. in 1994.
As far as Vince Foster, and Ron Brown…One a suicide the other dying in an airplane crash what are your facts other than that is what transpired. Do you without facts see sometype of conspiracy?
You say a “SCANDAL” about going to Kosovo without U.N. approval. Truth is this was a NATO operation….
Don’t let the facts get in your way DUTCHMAN!
By COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
June 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
From one concerned citizen of U.S.A,
Dear American Voters, reporters, media. professionals, political parties, and presidential Nominees,
Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees in my opinion are as under:
In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities and attributes.
Senator Obama and his administration along with congress will address all the critical current and future domestic and foreign issues, challenges, and opportunities in coming years.
Let us remember and recite following concepts:
” Family, Friends, Fellows, Faith, Funds, Foundation [s], Fun, with Freedom & Fairness and without Fear, Favor, & Failure” . It applies to every citizen of our Greatgrand Nation.
Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..
Yours truly,
COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall Disabled American Veteran Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas
PS: Please talk about the ” Presidential Temperament And Caliber ” of our presumptive presidential Nominees. We do talk about the “Judicial Temperament” of our Supreme Court Justices nominees and so far we have failed to talk about the ” Presidential Temperament ” of our presumptive presidential nominees. The ” Presidential Temperament ” is the ultimate and in my opinion only requirement of our president as that effects every living soul here and around the world.
Thanks again.
By Dutchman
June 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
deegee,
Odd, in the International Herald, it says -“Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.” Of the original 4, only one is a US oil company - yep, we are really making strides.
I guess that one company will take over everything - or are only the US oil companies bad?
By HA
June 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Hey Fix-It. It’s simple.
HE DOESN’T HAVE TO!
And he can do so ON HIS OWN TERMS!
It’s good to be in the cat bird seat. I know.
You idiots don’t want to admit it, but you know in the depths of your hearts you don’t have a candidate in McCain. The “real” Conservatives cannot stand him, but must swallow their pride and prop up this clown while holding their noses, because unlile thouse of us of free thought, they are so stuck on labels and partisanship they cannot get the monkey off their backs.
Sucks being a lemming doesn’t it??How pathetic.
By Laughing_Out_Loud
June 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
First of all, GetReal, thank you for presenting FACTS as opposed to hearsay.
Fix-it I would much rather have no voting record at all than for my voting record to show that I have stood on both sides of the fence and a vast majority of issues.
This is presented most recently where McCain flip-flopped yet again with the drilling issue. The other day he is for it, but a couple months ago, he publicly said that he was against it. Which one is it?
By Laughing_Out_Loud
June 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
First of all, GetReal, thank you for presenting FACTS as opposed to hearsay.
Fix-it I would much rather have no voting record at all than for my voting record to show that I have stood on both sides of the fence and a vast majority of issues.
This is presented most recently where McCain flip-flopped yet again with the drilling issue. The other day he is for it, but a couple months ago, he publicly said that he was against it. Which one is it?
By Dutchman
June 19, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
ghost rider ,
It was Clinton that did not allow extra armor to be used when the commanders in the field asked for it.
As far as Vince Foster, the cloud around that are still popping up every now and then. Re: Ron Browns funeral, the pictures of Clinton laughing and joking, then seeing the cameras and wiping a tear from his eye, that spoke to ALL.
Kosovo - It seemed he acted unilaterally, gathering allies after the fact and not before. At least Bush could convince the UN that Iraq was a worthy target.
By Get Real
June 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Why Don’t YOU Get Real @ 10:54. I love to keep schooling these fall for the okie doke Republicans. Check these FACTS out:
The Census Bureau reported that median incomes for working-age families were down again, for the fifth straight year. Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year. All of that gain has gone to upper-bracket people and corporate profits.
The Pew Research Center released an extensive survey on public attitudes about the economy. Pew reported, “The public thinks that workers were better off a generation ago on every key dimension of worker life — be it wages, benefits, retirement plans, on-the-job stress, the loyalty they are shown by employers.” And, statistically, the public is right.
The Globe recently reported that chief executives of nonprofit hospitals now routinely make more than $1 million. University presidents are not far behind.
The Economic Policy Institute (on whose board I serve) has released its annual, encyclopedic report, “The State of Working America.” Among its findings: The economy’s productivity increased by a remarkable 33.5 percent between 1995 and 2005, but real wages have declined since 2000. Employer-provided health coverage declined from 69 percent in 1979 to 56 percent in 2004. The top 1 percent’s share of interest, dividends, and capital gains has risen from 37.8 percent in 1979 to 57.5 percent in 2003.
Don’t come with opinions like old fart Wooten, present hardcore facts ‘stupid’. I’m an Independent so I can agree with any pertinent information from either side. The FACT is, people are working harder now and making less when you take inflation into account. And as to your comment that, “The only people who were better off during the Clinton years than they are today are those who are on welfare,” I guess you were asleep when Clinton ended welfare. Remember the Welfare to Work Bill?? Probably not. Thats the problem with you lemmings, you say anything with no substance to back it up.
By TW
June 19, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Fix-It - you actually voiced support for McSame! Congratulations! You can think!
As far as Obama voting present, it’s really unfair to use this as a comparison, being McSame doesn’t know whether he’s present or not half the time - hence the resume filled with two-faced babble…
And I don’t believe I ever said I support Obama. Probably your two chambered, frog heart of a brain won’t get this, but there are other options.
What I do support, for sure, is the party that allowed itself to be infiltrated and destroyed by ‘w’ be held accountable for placing party before country. Somebody dig up Reagan and tell him ‘thou shall not talk evil of another republican’ has turned out to be a real loser…
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Get your facts straight. Obama never voted “present” in the US Senate. That was in Illinois State Senate, where he cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. (from MSNBC’s website)
By deegee
June 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Dutchman, 3 out of the 4 countries that were in Iraq before Saddaam Hussein kicked them out years ago are associated with the George Bush/Tony Blair war strategy.
By ghost rider
June 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
DUTCHMAN..It was not Clinton, it was Les Aspin the Secretary of Defense who rejected the military request for additional armored tanks!
He was subsequently fired a few months later in December of 1993. Unlike Rumsfeld who continued to serve years after the Iraq fiasco.
And again, you raise the Foster (suicide) Brown (airplane crash) with your supposition about a cloud every now and again…FACTS! Where are the FACTS? Oh, yea I forgot to read the National Enquirer yesterday!
I won’t even venture into the mess that is Iraq!
By BFKaJ
June 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Dear findog @ 10:49, you have yet to grasp reality, but that is my purpose here, to show the path. I cannot see that any of your post had anything to do with anything I wrote – not that relevance is a pre-requisite for my attention. You manufacture a false limitation, that preserving western values against Islamists requires higher taxes; you consciously disregard the leftist proclivity for buying votes by stealing taxpayer funds for “reallocation.” Of course, less government is always a viable alternative. You act as if Ireland had no choice to lower its corporate taxes; the choice is always there, but leftists lack the volition. The greatest stretch of prosperity for America ran from 1981-1990 (when taxes were improvidently raised). I agree that 1995-2001 was also a good time, when the economy was spurred by free trade – NAFTA. The post 9/11 malaise was cured by the Bush tax cuts, thus the great run from 2002-2007, ended only by raising the minimum wage and the looming largest tax increase in the world. Seemingly American democrats are slow learners, but the rest of the world is eating America’s lunch, thanks to the tax and regulate mentality of our leftists. As to your final demand, join with me in a move to abolish all of the nonmilitary spending of the US government – abolish Department of Education (they don’t educate anybody), Urban Affairs (since when are local issues a Federal issue?), Agriculture (80% of their spending is welfare, not related to growing anything), Transportation (nothing but a means of extorting politically approved behavior), Energy (unless someone somewhere can prove it has led to production of one therm of energy), and dozens of others.
Special note to Dutchman @ 11:21, your lunchtime post yesterday was brilliant, and I wish I had written it. Apologies for this late compliment.
By The General Feeling
June 19, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Change? I though that meant that Obama was also coming after the spare change in my pocket…..
By Pat
June 19, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Change: What’s left in your pocket after Democrats raise your taxes.
http://www.cafepress.com/DefiningChange
By Must Have Been the Beans
June 19, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
I have really bad gas today. I think I hear the guy in the other cubicle crying.
By fairy god mother
June 19, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
By BFKaJ
June 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
BFKaJ you write “(since when are local issues a Federal issue?),”
I would say since the supreme court stopped the recount vote in Florida.
Also, when the Senate leader, George Bush, and a whole bunch of neo thugs attempt to over rule the Terry Schiavo issue.
I thought you were a lawyer???Obviously you’re oblivious to what is going on…
By NoneOfTheAbove
June 19, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Here is why I am scared to death of an Obama presidency:
McCain will not really help us from an economic standpoint. Obama probably would be best as a domestic policy president. BUT, we have two tremendous threats which Obama has proven by his words he has no ability to fathom how to cope with.
ONE: Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Once they have it, so will terrorists. His plan is to “talk” and “appease” them. Their plan is to destroy the West. They will not be happy until we are dead. That is their appeasement. Their hatred of us has no bounds. He has no concept of that. McCain understands that. I believe he is the only one of the two that can keep America safe from that threat.
TWO: The Middle East currently holds us hostage to oil. Obama apparently wants us to continue to be held hostage to them. Why? I have no idea. McCain is on the right track by wanting to open up new drilling and build new refineries. The only way to remove the threat the Middle East represents to us is to remove our dependance on their oil. At the same time, we must spend as much as possible to develop new technology and find a new fuel source to eliminate the need for oil completely. Oil can last us for only another 50-100 years at best. Enough time to find a new fuel source. Obama would tax the oil companies, which would only serve to raise prices higher. McCain would eliminate our dependence on foriegn oil and r