David Corn

You gotta love it!

Everybody was all worried that Barack was not ruthless enogh?

I think he plans on winning and taking no prisoners on the way.

Say hello to President Obama!

*cheers*

Oh, he's ruthless all right. He's a ruthless street organizer from Chicago. He built his coalition and made his friends helping ACORN infiltrate Chicago government. Many of his associates and acquaintances are nothing more than thugs who should be wearing orange jumpsuits. (in fact, some already are or will be shortly!)

He's also the ultimate trojan horse candidate and a true Socialist that would warm the heart of Karl Marx were he alive today.

Of course, I'm preaching to the proverbial choir here, aren't I. A lot of you folks readily identify with him because you are haters of America and all she stands for. You are Socialists hell bent on de-constructing America as we know it.

No wonder a lot of you would like to see him be the President!

I'll give you a little insight on Obama and his machine.

In the State where I live, his people ruthlessly ran roughshod over the caucuses on election day to the point where Obama ended up with MORE delegates than Clinton who won the popular vote.

At the Democrat's state convention to decide who goes to the National convention it got even worse. I have it from a first-hand source who used to be a State legislator that Obama's people simply swept former Hillary supporters (and other Democrats with long histories of service) aside like they weren't even there.

This person was so disgusted, she simply left and didn't return.

Did I mention he's as ruthless as Lenin was? He's learned a lot from history and intends to do whatever it takes to be President.

Meanwhile, his other face is turned to the starry-eyed masses who swoon at his every word. What fools. They have absolutely no idea who this man really is.

Julius Caesar Obama?

Tim,

Why the personal attacks?

What does your poor an uninformed opinion of my opinion matter to even you?

Why is that a substantial issue?

Please, I am curious, nobody has attacked you personally, nobody has posted a darn thing to you.

Why be hatin'?

Do you intend to make a point or is insulting you're "A" game?

No reason for it, no matter what.

Ad Hominem - personal attacks are meaningless.

*brushes shoulder*

Bush To Filipino President: "I Am Reminded Of The Great Talent Of The -- Of Our Philippine-Americans When I Eat Dinner At The White House"

*****

What an embarrassment - at least we can all be proud of president Barack!

Per the New York Times:

It was not all about pop culture. When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don’t do cowering."

Ralph Nader's Clintonesque Race-baiting.

For Ralph Nader to accuse Barack Obama of talking white, and of not wanting to appear like Jesse Jackson is an undisguised race-baiting of the first order. Nader has become irrelevent to the political currents that are a driving force behind people's desire for change. Change that has catalyzed political dynamics and set in motion a co-relation of forces seeking to dislodge the politics of entitlement represented by the likes of Nader, the Clintons and a coterie of liberal egomaniacs. Nader, having castigated what not long ago were considered his natural allies is now finding himself maginalized, and the only way out of that self-maginalization is for him to spew controversial racial epithets just to come out of oblivion his opportunism has consigned him into. Nader's racially-tinged utterances are typical of those of most liberals: masquarading as paragons of racial tolerance and equality, but they buckle under pressure and display their true nature as closetted bigots.

http://tinyurl.com/4gepgh

*****

What a shame to hear this from Ralph?

Capt,

Don't take it personally. I was speaking about people I've seen posting here in general.

Sorry to lead with such intensity, but I am just frustrated that Obama has gotten a pass from the mainstream media on just about every issue. Hell, he even has one network shamelessly shilling for him outright.

I've had a 'rita now so I'm mellowing out...

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:

1. He's against drilling for more oil.

2. He wants to tax the oil companies who actually have one of the lowest profit margins of any industry. This will not solve the problem.

3. He's not opposed to killing an infant that survives a late-term abortion.

4. He is willing to sit down and talk with terrorist regimes instead of putting them in their place (militarily if necessary)

5. His associates are anti-American, hardcore leftists and in a number of cases are criminals that ought to be in jail.

6. His views on religion send shudders down my spine.

7. He's a liar - His Muslim past, NAFTA, Pulling out of Iraq, His use (Not!) of public funds for his campaign... and the list grows longer every day.

8. He believes that he can raise taxes and get away with it. In particular, his plan to raise the capital gains tax would be particularly onerous for the middle class.

9. He would reduce spending on weapons research and the military. Bad move! Our enemies would love to see this.

10. He is the favorite of Muslims in a number of countries in the Middle East. 'Nuff said!

So what? This is David Corn's blog, what does your BS have to do with the meeting today with Poufle?

Do you think this is a bulletin board for your random thoughts about whatever?

Show a little respect and post something to or about David's work before you drift off into JITA land?

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

(kos)

*****

It will be interesting to have the FEC rule on this.

The people are speaking with their pocket books, but of course Obama's detractors still cling to "he must be lying about where the money is coming from" conspiracy theories. This election is his to lose.

It has been quite a while since a Tim has delivered such funnies here, hasn't it? He can't seem to process the fact that if McCain were to be elected and we immediatally began drilling for more oil he would be a lame duck in his second term before any of that oil makes it to the market and even then the impact on prices would be minimal. (I remember experts estimating drilling in ANWR would eventually drop gas prices $0.02) And that totally ignores such action would only serve to extend our nation's oil addiction, delaying a much needed move towards alternatives. That he takes the thoroughly debunked chain email of Obama's "secret Muslim past" seriously makes me giggle in particular.

Oh, and here's a litlte something on the poor low profit margin oil industry.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html
But unrivaled returns on equity. However, profit margins across industries vary greatly based not on how well each business is doing but how capital- or labor-intensive it is. Oil is among the most capital-intensive. But look at the oil industry's profits compared with shareholder equity it has available for investment. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's most recent analysis of the oil industry's performance, released just last month, showed oil industry return on equity of 27 percent—about 10 points higher than that of other manufacturers. And it has been higher throughout this recent era of high world oil prices, just as it was back during the oil shock that hit in 1980.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document."

Capt, this is the sort of thing that illustrates what a crock the idea Obama is the one getting a pass from the media is. Just about anything he says or does that could be twisted into a negative gets looped by the corporate media like his decision to forego public financing, but McCain possibly breaking the law hardly gets a mention.

Eye's

Someone is up early!

Good Morning!

June 26, 2008

EDITORIAL (NYTimes)
Snuggling Up to the Bundlers

In his self-serving retreat from the spending restraints of public financing, Senator Barack Obama hailed his formidable Internet army of small donors as “a new kind of politics.” Maybe so. But just in case, the senator is not about to neglect the old politics of special-interest money bundlers in his presidential campaign.

Senator Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her platinum card money raisers. One group specialized in amassing $250,000 packages for the campaign, while another excelled at hitting $1 million jackpots.

Now that Mr. Obama has forsworn the public spending limits that he initially pledged to defend, campaign aides have great expectations for Mrs. Clinton’s bundlers. If Mr. Obama woos and wows them, his aides hope they can generate an extra $75 million in private donations for the Obama campaign in coming weeks.

In Vegas, that’s called covering the board — continuing to work the 1.5 million small-bet donors who helped Mr. Obama set grass-roots records, while attending to the political high rollers, too.

Senator Clinton has her own practical interests for this meeting. Mr. Obama is offering to help her with the $22 million she owes after her campaign went bust.

In real-world politics, none of this is a surprise. But in ideal politics — the realm Mr. Obama often purports to speak for — the meeting could mean another coffin nail for public financing. Senator Obama should at least pledge to make the updating of the public subsidy system a top priority of his first year in the White House.

Senator John McCain — who is also vying for the mantle of reformer in chief — is opting for the public subsidies that begin after the conventions. In the meantime, he is relying on his own flock of special-interest bundlers to raise all the private funds he can.

The voters should not be fooled. They must demand that both candidates explain how they will reform the campaign-finance system so no future candidate has any excuse for going into hock to the bundlers and their special-interest donors.

If HRC has such great and grand support why would she need any help with retiring her debt?

Let her blind supporters that see none of her faults support her expensive hobby.

As I have posted before - she had no chance in Feb. all her debt is hers.

If you think she ran a good campaign send her $20?

That's $36 MILLION if she really has 18 million supporters, eh?

Heck she is so good she should be able to turn a healthy profit, eh?

I'll not send her a farthing.

To be fair - I will send Barack another $25 for good measure.

It is good to see such support for Barack from the HRC supporters - most of the hill shills are at least trying to mend the fences they trashed. The honest ones, anyway.

When's Elizabeth Edwards going to endorse Obama I wonder?

Dead silence is all I hear. The Sacred One stiffed her on universal health care and I guess she's still holding the grudge.

It's well documented that the young, healthy and uninsured spend more on entertainment, recreation, eating out, and on-line Obama donations than they would have to pay for health insurance premiums....if they deigned to take up that basic personal responsibility. (And the young, healthy and single pay the lowest premiums of anyone).

Young people also have a very high rate of skipping out on their emergency room medical bills after their bike accidents too... I guess they're just used to having Mom and Dad pick up the bill...

Of course, if they get really sick, they and their folks quickly figure out that if the young person declares himself indigent, then the gov't will pick up the whole tab under Medicaid.

But as long as you're healthy, let the free ride continue!

Universal health care requires universal citizenship. Yet another basic "truth" that Mr. O would rather not bring up to confuse his manyj young adulants.

That's why Mrs. Edwards remains silent.

Selling out universal health care, caving to the Israel lobby, sucking up to ethanol corporate welfare lobby (Iowa, Illinois), dumping public financing, long years of service to the nuclear power industry (the bogus Exelon bill he claims he "passed" [NOT]), voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill...

Are you actually a Democrat capt or just a member of an Obama personality cult? Do you actually stand for anything besides those amorphous "change" platitudes?

Obama's pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan, in case you didn't notice. Are you going to be gung-ho for that too?

Hey, I'll bet your old enough to enlist! That would be a good way to show your passion for "change!" (Might be a little harder than clicking off another $25 from your discretionary income fund.... an extra $25 comes a little harder for several tens of millions of American workers... The people Hillary and many real Democrats have been fighting for for years.)

(I already know you're not that good at math, but winning the nomination with a popular vote margin of two one-thousandths, losing a string of big state primaries at the end, and relying on party insiders to cement your victory, does not, in fact, support your theory that Hillary's run was just an "expensive" hobby.)

Look like the the plan is working!

In the new surveys of likely voters, Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by 52% to 39% in Wisconsin, by 54% to 37% in Minnesota, by 49% to 44% in Colorado and by 48% to 42% in Michigan.

Quinnipiac polled 1,400 to 1,600 likely voters in each state. The polls have a margin of error of from 2.5% to 2.7%.

******

Pollstrology - but if these number hold up you can stck a fork in McCain - he's done.

Robert Novak adds nothing new to the "Obamacons" story, but this quote makes it worth a mention:

The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse.

(WaPo via kos)

I hate Novak but this was too funny not to share.

On my way out to my nephew's birthday party and figured I'd stop by and wish Hajji a happy 44th birthday. Not bad for man who traffics in genetically altered, surgically enhanced ponies.
Salud. Amor. Pesetas. Y el tiempo en que gosarlo.

As you were....

A very Happy 44th to Hajji!!

Hi diff. Back for more? Wunnerful. Jess wunnerful!
==+==
When's Elizabeth Edwards going to endorse Obama I wonder?... Dead silence is all I hear. The Sacred One stiffed her on universal health care and I guess she's still holding the grudge....That's why Mrs. Edwards remains silent.

Are you actually a Democrat capt or...?
Posted by: Diff June 26, 2008 1:41 PM
==+==

Elizabeth Edwards Says It'll Be Close
By Garance Franke-Ruta
NEW YORK -- Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Democratic presidential candidate and vice presidential nominee John Edwards, predicted that November's contest between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain would be close....

***"I said I would work as hard as I could to make sure he is the next president,"*** said Elizabeth Edwards of Obama. Electing him president "is enormously important," she said, "but I don't think it is by any means assured."
WashPost: http://tinyurl.com/6os92n

Elizabeth Edwards: I'm Already Working With Obama's Team On Health Care

ROBERTS: Last month when your husband endorsed Senator Obama many noted that you did not. They did not hear from you. And they have a feeling that maybe you did not back him like your husband did. Is that the case? And are you backing Senator Obama now?

EDWARDS: I'm backing Senator Obama. I expect to work as hard as I need to. As I'm called on to do to make certain that he is the next president. I'm already working with this team with respect to health care, trying to make certain that we get the message out about how much difference it will make in individual American's lives if we have a president with the ideas and the vision that Senator Obama has, as opposed to the same old same old, that Senator McCain is suggesting we can live with. I don't think we can.
HuffPost: http://tinyurl.com/4l5d4d
==+==

Soooo.... Are you actually a Democrat diff, or just an LBH-style ignoramus?

And for emphasis, is Mrs. Edwards holding a grudge against Obama?
==+==
* Mrs. Edwards said she had given her word to Mrs. Clinton, whose call for universal health care she supported, that she would not endorse Mr. Obama, as her husband had. But she is now part of Mr. Obama’s health care committee and is pressing for true universal coverage.
NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/63orck
==+==
Really. How hard is it to google "Elizabeth Edwards Obama?" I know the McBushniks are looking for anything to smear Obama with; but this is some seriously weak nonsense. Are you looking for BS to post or are you really that uninformed?

I'm really that uninformed. Thanks for updating me.

Obviously any Democrat is going to be better than McCain on health care, and I'm glad he's got Mrs. Edwards on his team. That is hopeful. I wish he'd take her advice and take a stand on universal health care.

I just wish he'd take a courageous stand on something (like universal health care). The magnitude of his victory will mean nothing...will produce zero political capital...if he doesn't make it about something substantive...

On January 20, 2009 he'll inherit the fiscal train wreck left behind by Bush... a deliberate poison pill left behind for any President who might actually want to govern effectively...

...If he doesn't stake out the painful choices now that are going to be required, then the victory will be wasted...

I know you're thrilled you embarassed me with Mrs. Edwards, but you still didn't answer a single one of my actual points.

To repeat:

Selling out universal health care, caving to the Israel lobby, sucking up to ethanol corporate welfare lobby (Iowa, Illinois), dumping public financing, long years of service to the nuclear power industry (the bogus Exelon bill he claims he "passed" [NOT]), voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill...

Are you actually a Democrat capt or just a member of an Obama personality cult? Do you actually stand for anything besides those amorphous "change" platitudes?

Obama's pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan, in case you didn't notice. Are you going to be gung-ho for that too? Are you going to enlist?

Rolling Stone gets Obama to give the most succinct explanation of his goals as president:

WENNER: "Is there a marker you would lay down at the end of your first term where you say, ‘If this has happened or not happened, I would consider it a negative mark on my governance’?"

OBAMA: "If I haven’t gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we’ve missed the boat. Those are three big jobs, so it’s going to require a lot of attention and imagination, and it’s going to require the American people feeling inspired enough that they’re prepared to take on these big challenges."

****

I can put up with a few more clunkers if he can get these three done. Heck I might even settle for 2 out of 3

Concern trolls are funny.

Never have their facts in hand due to excessive hand wringing.

lolololololololololo

To repeat: Diff

Quit with the personal stuff, that doesn't belong on the blog.

I would have replied if you you could stay on the issues, whether another poster is gung-ho, can add, whatever is never an issue. Think about what you are projecting?

"Are you going to enlist?" WTF? Is that your business?

Is that a fair question? Why? How would that effect the candidates or issues - it wouldn't so why the BS?

Cut the crap, this isn't the place for it.

Here's a list of unnecessary insults and personal attacks:

Are you actually a Democrat capt or just a member of an Obama personality cult?

Do you actually stand for anything besides those amorphous "change" platitudes?

I already know you're not that good at math

*****

Non-issues and petty personal attacks are unnecessary and show you to be more than just uninformed.

Cut the crap. Stay on an issues, make a point or you can expect me to JITA.

Thanks!

Obama: ‘I bit my tongue’ against Clinton

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he bit his tongue “many times” during the fierce primary battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Two sources said that Obama’s comments came after Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton backer, told the Illinois senator that the Democratic Party needs time to heal.

“I bit my tongue many times. Many times. I bit my tongue many times during this campaign,” Obama told his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) last week during a private meeting. He repeated the “I bit my tongue” phrase three times during the meeting, the sources said.

http://tinyurl.com/65baza

*******

I had to bite my tongue too. I could have devolved into string of expletives and meaningless diatribes about how much I dislike HRC, she is a harpy shrill, and a typical politician.

The racist attacks from her and her surrogates were WAY over the top.

By the numbers she lost (as I have posted many times) in Feb. - the math never supported her claims. The popular vote is a notion not a measure in the primary. Delegates, delegates, delegates (unless they change the system)

BHO gave $4,600 to her. How nice of him, eh?

Now THAT is a class act, HRC - not-so-much.

Capt, your relentless and nasty caricatures of HRC (repeated ad nauseum through literally scores and scores of posts on this blog) are far more personal and offensive (and sexist) than anything I ever posted, or Hillary ever said.

The "racist" charge is bull. It's not racist to comment on the demographic breakdown of the primary vote. HRC was far stronger with the white working class than Obama was. Simple fact. Nothing racist about it. And people like me who weren't affected by the Obama "magic" didn't oppose because he was black, they opposed him because he was all celebrity and no track record. And the few details we could find out about him (Goolsbee, ethanol, Israel, Exelon, Bush/Cheney energy bill etc.) weren't exactly "inspiring."

What's offensive is calling the Clintons racist. That stinks to high heaven. And its flatly inaccurate.

It's just like the Israel lobby calling anyone who criticizes Israel's apartheid and ethnic cleansing policies since '48 an "anti-Semite."

Meanwhile, the fact that BO's so adored by the "comfortable liberals," (i.e. upper-income Democrats and their well-financed youngsters) isn't so comforting either. On past battles (Iraq, universal health care, energy), those well-heeled Democrats have traditionally been the first to jump ship, "split-the-difference," and end up torpedoing real Progressive reform.

Hillary's effort at health care reform in '93 failed, in part, because of a "Democratic alternative," supported by "centrist" Democrats and the insurance lobby... I think it was called the "Cooper Plan." It looked a lot like Obama's insurance-friendly health care proposals today. Sorry, but that's just not very inspiring to me. Mr. O tosses around the word "universal" a lot, but his health care plan just isn't.

And his failure to ask young people to step and either A) pay into a health insurance system, or B) volunteer for the military to fight in his promised Afghanistan escalation....

Our volunteers are paying a horrific price.... having to go back to Iran and Afghanistan again and again because so many young people "have other priorities" (like Dick Cheney during Vietnam). It's utterly shameful.

He gave a great speech on public service recently. But completely left out serving in the military.

But maybe these points are a little too subtle for you I guess. I doubt you'll address any of them.

"WAY over the TOP" describes the sanctimonious nastiness (and cartoonish childishness) of your personal attacks on HRC and McCain.

I've never complained when you and others called me a troll or a closet Republican. I'm the one actually sticking to the issues. Despite my occasional errors. Which I readily admit to.

I appreciate the Rolling Stone quote. Two out of three would be great, I agree. I guess I just need more than two or three offhand sentences.

On Iraq: Will he admit his statements on the prospects for the "surge" a year ago turned out to be wildly inaccurate?

On health care: Will he have the courage to tell people that paying health insurance premiums is a required act of citizenship?

On energy: Will he stand up to the corn ethanol lobby and state the obvious that it's a ridiculous pork barrel boondoggle and will play no role in our energy future? (Ethanol produces exactly as much climate-changing CO2 as oil from foreign sources).

I know you're thrilled you embarassed me...
Posted by: Diff June 27, 2008 1:26 AM
==+==
No. Actually, it bothers me to have to do it since you call yourself a Democrat. The friendly-fire aspect of it all makes me uneasy. You have also been polite to me in a couple of posts; and your graciousness makes it hard for me to make my points soooooo... um... pointedly.
==+==
To repeat:
Selling out universal health care, caving to the Israel lobby, sucking up to ethanol corporate welfare lobby (Iowa, Illinois), dumping public financing, long years of service to the nuclear power industry (the bogus Exelon bill he claims he "passed" [NOT]), voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill...

Obama's pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan, in case you didn't notice. Are you going to be gung-ho for that too? Are you going to enlist?
Posted by: Diff June 27, 2008 1:26 AM

I speak for myself when I say:
First off, escalation in Afghanistan is merited, as is a turnover in US-Pakistani policy. And again, you misunderestimate your audience. We are all actually much too old to enlist in the armed forces.

As for your enumerated complaints:
1) selling out UHC-- if he hasn't skinned that cat his way, you can make that charge. If he gets elected and UHC gets dropped, I'll get back to you with my agreement.
2) caving to the Israel lobby. As I mentioned before, his stance hasn't changed. He was as staunchly a Zionist before he began his campaign as he has been recently (complaints about AIPAC from his advisers notwithstanding).
3)ethanol - is only a sliver of his energy policy. There is no magic bullet to transition away from fossil fuels. You've read his energy policy (I'm assuming, crazy me), and you know that reliance on ethanol (and its concomitant effect on the economy, macro-wise) can only be addressed properly if CAFE standards and consumption rates are lowered. The overly-simplistic rants against ethanol discount the overall energy plan.
4) the nuclear energy issue - as Obama has stated, not an ideal solution; but one that must be explored (short-term) until a better (safer) source is developed.
5) public financing -small $$ donations combined with a disavowal of PAC money and money from FEDERAL Lobbying Organizations (NOT individuals, organizations, got it?) is the closest thing to public financing that we're gonna get for a long time. The issue of 527s is the sticking point in negotiations with Gramps' camp when it comes to Public Financing. Obama has reined in the Lefty 527s (Brock's and Soros'). Gramps can't or won't. That being the case, going the PF route would be suicide for Obama. I'm assuming you don't want that (crazy me).
6) Voting for President Cheney's energy bill and backing Lieberman against Ned Lamont have been Obama's two biggest errors (and for me unforgiveable). He went all Springer on Lieberman recently and I'm sure he gave him the "I know it was you Fredo/ you're dead to me" Corleone speech. So as far as I can tell, he will correct that error by neutering Lieberman. There is no way to pretty-up the Energy Vote. His redemption can only come by getting himself elected and making amends from inside the WH.

Again, I don't like embarrassing you. On the contrary, it bothers me a great deal. But the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. I read that somewhere. Stop with the gratuitous and baseless bashing of the denizens of this blog, act like you would rather have Obama elected (and not McBush); And you won't hear another peep from me.

Timmy, on the other hand.... I enjoy bashing that child.

Mr. Corn has posted a new thread. I'll play here.

JITA! It is. . . .

How scared shitless are the dingbats over the possibility of a President Obama, a president that "doesn't do cowering?" Check out Timmy:

'll give you a little insight on Obama and his machine. In the State where I live, his people ruthlessly ran roughshod over the caucuses ... Did I mention he's as ruthless as Lenin was? He's learned a lot from history and intends to do whatever it takes to be President.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 7:44 PM

Ruthless. Obama is the equivalent of the man who instituted the "Red Terror" in Soviet Russia. Tens of thousands political enemies executed. Hundreds of thousands sent to Gulags worse than Gitmo. Peasants rousted and summarily executed.

Yeah. They're scared. Are the polls really THAT bad for Gramps?

“I serve as a blank screen,” Obama wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” “on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

(from NYTimes article today on Obama shifting toward the center.)

Pretty succinct. In his words. Perfect description of all the lefties signing on with a guy who's probably to the right of the DLC.

He's also the ultimate trojan horse candidate and a true Socialist that would warm the heart of Karl Marx were he alive today.
Posted by: TimJune 25, 2008 7:30 PM

Look at right-track/ wrong-track numbers and political affiliation polls and you'll see why the GOP has become the DMW (Dead Man Walking) party. Anyone who is for working-class Americans, anyone who dares to take the side of workers against multi-billion $$ corporations, anyone who asks that Big Business take care of its work force is labeled a Marxist. Red Baiting is one in a long line of attacks that only make things worse for the DMW party.

And they wonder why their pathetic minority is actually SHRINKING. Roadblock Republicans call themselves an opposition party. How long till the Libertarian party takes its rightful place as the TRUE opposition party to the Democratic party?

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:

1. He's against drilling for more oil.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

==+==
But hold on a minute, so is Gramps McBush:

"Among the Republicans, Texas Governor George Bush notes that while he 'would encourage exploration' particularly for natural gas, he supports the existing moratorium on California and Florida offshore oil drilling. Senator John McCain, who criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leaves along the central California coast over the objections of that state's Governor and Attorney General, has promised to 'never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.'"
source: http://tinyurl.com/5pcs3j

Or is this the Real McBush?

McCain flip-flops on offshore drilling moratorium.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (cR-AZy) offered “a bit of a capitulation to the oil companies” by announcing that he would end the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. Not only is McCain’s move a break with environmental activist, but it is also “a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes:

During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the “special interests in Washington” that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same “moratoria should be lifted” and proposed incentives for the states “in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.”
==+==

Which McBush are you voting for Timmy? The maverick of 2000 or the pandering flip-flopper of 2008?

Right.

More on the offshore drilling issue:

Schwarzenegger chides McCain for "blowing smoke" on offshore drilling

Gotta love it when a big GOP celebrity like the Governor of California goes way off script to lay in, hard at that, on the GOP Nominee and Florida Governor and in the process speak truth to silliness.

"America is so addicted to oil that it will take years to ween ourselves from it," Schwarzenegger said. "To look for new ways to feed our addiction is not the answer."

"Anyone who tells you this would bring down gas prices anytime soon is blowing smoke," he added.
DKos: http://tinyurl.com/4n6lgm
==+==
Just day's earlier, McCain himself admitted the "plan" was pretty useless...
YouTube: http://tinyurl.com/43dq2c

DMW, Timmy. Dead. Man. Walking.

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:
2. He wants to tax the oil companies who actually have one of the lowest profit margins of any industry. This will not solve the problem.

3. He's not opposed to killing an infant that survives a late-term abortion.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

Eyes already knocked down that profit margin canard.

When I originally read about the abortion stance, it worried me. I know he gets a 100% or so rating from NARAL and all the feminist choice groups; but this issue seemed too weird until I read up on it. Remember the Schiavo case where the DMW tried to use the State to force a Dr. to do what was not ethical or scientifically reasonable? This is what the law that Obama voted against was trying to do (threaten to prosecute Drs. who didn't intervene against a patient's wishes). It's similar to prosecuting a Dr. for honoring DNR wishes. Ask Hajji about that one and how ridiculous that would be. Do you really want to replay the whole Schiavo debacle? This is what the DMW party is setting itself up for on this issue. When there are more Indies and Libertarians than Republicons in Congress, don't say I didn't warn ya'.

P. S. Afghanistan is every bit the military dead-end that Iraq is. And the Pakistanis hardly want us interfering MORE in their affairs either...

....Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Armitage... they all tried twisting the Pakistanis' arms.... threatening, cajoling, bribing.... Totally useless... Maybe the Obama Kool-Aid will work better on Nawaz Sharif and the Bhutto family than it did on white working class guys like me...

To think the Pakistanis have any intention of launching a civil war in the tribal areas... or are going to allow us to invade them... (triggering a civil war anyway)... Totally a pipedream...

But then, Obama's a "blank screen," right? We really have NO idea what he's going to actually do as President...

Unfortunately, it's damn hard enough to do ANYTHING as President, without building some political capital in advance. (Like having an actual substantial career in real-life politics first...). The Presidency isn't like Captain Kirk's chair on the Enterprise.... complete with all sorts of magical buttons of super power....

Where the chair should be will be a big hold...surrounded by empty bolt-holes...

I'm hoping, hoping, hoping....

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:

4. He is willing to sit down and talk with terrorist regimes instead of putting them in their place (militarily if necessary)
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

It is rather sad when the DMW has to resort to lies and distortions to make their foreign policy points.

As has been noted on this blog, Obama has talked escalation in Afghanistan and has approved strikes within the border of Pakistan (which have been used to some effect by Mr. 20%). Surely, you've heard his "I'm not opposed to all wars, just dumb ones" quote. Or maybe not.

As for putting terrorist regimes (like Hamas) in their place, the American public will note that the DMW McBush strategy effectively landed Hamas in power. Genius. And I mean that in a Karl-Rove-ruined-the-GOP kind of genius.

Ask Americans if they agree with McBush that the military option was the way to go in Iraq or if they agree with Obama's position. That issue, on its own, is capable of bringing down Gramps and his 100 Year Pledge of Iraqi Occupation. If McBush wants to run on his support for Mr. 20%'s war, I'm fine with that.

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:

5. His associates are anti-American, hardcore leftists and in a number of cases are criminals that ought to be in jail.

6. His views on religion send shudders down my spine.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

Going in reverse order, since when have you been so averse to Christianity? You seem to be echoing Gramps' disavowal of the "agents of intolerance" (Parsley and Hagee).

As for his associates, do you have any particular associates in mind?

If you are going to disqualify a candidate for his campaign employing criminals and thugs, you might as well announce for either Obama or Barr or Nader.

Obviously, you'll shun Gramps for employing Rick Renzi in his campaign. Renzi got indicted on... what?... 36 counts or something along those lines.
Here's a good picture of Renzi and McBush with a blurb about the indictment
FauxNews: http://tinyurl.com/34y3fd

I guess that's not really fair since he was a former Republicon Congressman. And we all know how the Justice Dept and various law enforcement agencies have been flooded with caseloads centered on the GOP and their corrupt operation.

Then there's the part of his Florida campaign that got arrested for doing a Larry Craig:

A day after four of Sen. John McCain's top political strategists stepped down, the co-chairman of his Florida campaign was arrested Wednesday for allegedly offering an undercover police officer money for a sex act, Titusville police said.

Florida state Rep. Bob Allen faces charges of solicitation for prostitution after he was arrested in a Titusville city park that had been under surveillance, police said.

He allegedly offered an undercover police officer $20 for the unspecified act. His attorney, Philip Lupo of Titusville, said the charge was a second-degree misdemeanor.

Allen told CNN affiliate WFTV the incident was "a very big misunderstanding."
CNN: http://tinyurl.com/ysf473
==+==
The resulf of "a very big misunderstanding?" I think he meant the result of "a wide stance."

While we're on the subject of criminals in the DMW party. Gramps and his Indian Affairs Committee found that there was enough evidence to bring down Abramoff. All trails lead to his DMW friends in Congress. And he knew it. He purposely left their crimes untouched.

How many did he investigate? NONE. He followed the trail to Abramoff and turned tail when he got too close to Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and the myriad of thugs and criminals in the DMW constellation.

Ben Whitehorse Campbell started the investigation and handed it off to McBush. McBush dropped the ball in order to let his cronies run for cover.

Okay. Maybe you were talking about Rezko. They guy is doing time and Obama returned his dirty money.

When will the DMW turn away money from these folks:

==+==
Alan Fabian

The crime: The Maryland non-profit executive was hit with 23 charges related to allegations that he defrauded companies of $32 million.

The donations: As Romney's national finance committee co-chair, Fabian had given the Massachusetts Republican a maximum $2,300 for the primary. The campaign said it would not return an undisclosed amount of money raised by Fabian. Rudy Giuliani also returned a $1,000 donation from Fabian, noting in a moment of campaign trail bravado that, "We are returning the contribution Romney's national finance co-chair gave Rudy Giuliani."

==+==
Charles and Sam Wyly

The crime: The Wyly brothers have not been charged with any crime. But the two Texas businessmen are under investigation by the IRS and other federal and state agencies for an impressive network of, "58 overseas trusts and corporate shells designed to evade taxes on $190 million in corporate compensation," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The donations: The Wylys were major financial backers of George W. Bush and have supported a wide range of Republican politicians. John McCain, author of the McCain-Feingold legislation that sought to reign in excesses in federal campaign financing, returned $20,000 in donations from the Wyly brothers to the senator's campaigns and committees once the SEC investigation began. McCain's principle for vetting in that instance appears to have been 'better safe than sorry.'

==+==
Robert Asher

The crime: Asher was convicted in 1986 of arranging $300,000 worth of payoffs and political contributions for a no-bid contract in Pennsylvania and spent a year in jail. His co-defendant, state treasurer R. Budd Dwyer, called a press conference and shot himself in the head in front of the gathered media outlets.

The donations: Asher told donors in a letter this year that he had been appointed chairman of Giuliani's campaign efforts in Pennsylvania, according to the New York Times. The Giuliani campaign said that Asher was not appointed to the post. FEC records show that Asher has made a full $4,600 donation to Giuliani's campaign.

==+==
Robert Lichfield

The crime: 133 plaintiffs sued Lichfield alleging that boarding schools he operated abused children. The complaint accused Lichfield's schools of subjecting students to unsanitary living conditions, food deprivation, beatings, confinement in dog cages, and sexual abuse.

The donations: Lichfield was Romney's Utah committee co-chair. Romney raised $2.7 million in the state, according to a June 2007 article in The Hill, and a February event organized by Lichfield brought $300,000 to the Republican candidate. In September, Romney asked Lichfield to dissociate himself from the campaign until the lawsuit is settled, according to Radar.

==+==
Thomas Ravenel

The crime: South Carolina Treasurer and former real estate developer Ravenel was indicted in June for cocaine distribution in South Carolina.

The donations: Giuliani picked Ravenel to serve as chairman of his campaign in South Carolina, an important early primary state. FEC records show that Ravenel donated $2,300 to Giuliani's campaign.
==+==
I guess when the small $$ donations are going to Obama, Gramps and the DMW have to take whatever scraps they get.
==+==
HuffPost: http://tinyurl.com/6z7ca7

And speaking of investigations. What will the FEC say about McBush breaking campaign laws?

DNC & Plouffe: Gramps spending 'unlawfully'

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."
Politico: http://tinyurl.com/3f49zb

And the tea gets weaker as it goes on down:

Sticking to the issues, here's why I am diametrically opposed to an Obama presidency:

7. He's a liar - His Muslim past, NAFTA, Pulling out of Iraq, His use (Not!) of public funds for his campaign... and the list grows longer every day.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

Citation? Proof? These charges are flimsier than the whitey video allegations. Puh. Leeez.
==+==
8. He believes that he can raise taxes and get away with it. In particular, his plan to raise the capital gains tax would be particularly onerous for the middle class.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM
==+==
ESPECIALLY onerous for the middle class? Put the crack pipe down and walk away, child. Am I the only one who found the humor in point 7 calling Obama a liar and following it up in point 8 with an obvious falsehood?

It would be especially onerous on rich people.
According to factcheck.org this is an especially egregious lie:
To get a better idea of who would pay the most if capital gains rates went up, look at who gets the most capital gains income. More than eight dollars of every 10 in capital gains goes to those making more than $200,000 a year. Those are the tax filers who, overwhelmingly, would be affected by any increase in the rates, ***even if there were no exemptions such as Obama proposes***.
FC: http://tinyurl.com/3jfqvu

200K is the "middle?" Um. NO. This would be especially onerous on the 11% who most likely would be exempted by an Obama tax plan? WTF?:
"it's hard to see how that's true of a tax that directly affects — at most — 11 percent of a very ***generous*** definition of the middle class."
Polifact: http://tinyurl.com/4xmlsh
==+==
9. He would reduce spending on weapons research and the military. Bad move! Our enemies would love to see this.
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

After the havok in the ranks and destruction of the US Armed Forces brought about by a few short years of DMW administration, you guys have no standing when it comes to doing right by the military and those who serve. NONE. The fact that military leaders have come to Congress and have REPEATEDLY uttered the phrase "breaking point" shows just how COMPLETELY devoid of meaning the words "support the troops" have become on the lips of the DMW.

10. He is the favorite of Muslims in a number of countries in the Middle East. 'Nuff said!
Posted by: Tim June 25, 2008 11:00 PM

Couldn't you have come up with a more intellectually dishonest piece of crap?!! You have obviously stopped trying.

Except for the White Supremacists of the world, there is almost universal support for Obama. Does that make McCain a racist or racist sympathiser? 'Nuff said!

You know the saying, "only Nixon could go to China?" That only a guy with unquestioned anti-communist bona fides could have opened a relationship with Red China?

The same is actually true for McCain. My one hope for a McCain Presidency is that he might actually be able to cut our utterly bloated and corrupt and irrational defense budget...

Call me naive, but I actually believe McCain really does stand for fiscal conservatism and fightng waste, fraud and abuse. I don't believe he has any illusions about the rapacious and parochial greed that dominates the Congress/Pentagon pork machine.... He might actually take a meat axe to part of it...

Probably wishful thinking....

On the other hand, don't be surprised if the opposite dynamic constrains Mr. Sweetness and Light. His total lack of national security credentials means he won't be able to even cut a nickel...

...and he won't be above using Pentagon budget pork fat to grease the skids of his other initiatives...