Best McCain ad yet

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

So, it isn't wasteful or distracting to spend donors money on trips to countries where they can't vote in the election?

I am unclear what you are asserting. Are you asserting that a US Senator, much less one on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot go to Iraq and Europe. Are you actually asserting that. I mean even McCain said he should go

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . McCain's doctors disagree with you, so what makes you smarter than they are?

You missed the point. The point is McCain lied in his attack ads and you condone it. Would you feel the same way if the tables were turned.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Just crack any economics textbook, even those by Paul Krugman, and even he admits these rebates are totally inefficient and do not work. Last time it was tried was back in the Carter era and it didn't work then either. What Obama won't tell you is that if he taxes the oil companies at the rate he wants to and gives us all $1,000.00, it won't outweigh the price increases we will have to suffer as a result of his misguided policy, or the effects from the rising deficit by using the government to do what the market can do more efficiently. Someone open a damn textbook, will ya?! I would actually suggest Paul Krugman's texts, because he uses specific examples of the failures of these types of rehashed 70's energy policies that result in shortages and higher prices. Doesn't anyone remember this? Good lord.

I am talking about the ads specific reference to drilling for our oil and how that will somehow reduce the price of gas ostensibly now -- that is a lie and a patent one at that Do you not acknowledge that was a lie?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

So glad you brought this up! It certainly counters the notion of "McBush" as you would like to portray. Thanks for doing my job for me! I always had a problem with Bush for the way he went after McCain. It was sleazy.

Oh why not



Sure sounds like Bush to me --

Transcript:

QUESTION: Are there other signs you see that are encouraging to you...

MCCAIN: Oh yeah. A lot of the fundraisers from other camps are coming on board. And yeah we're seeing that coming together really well. We're seeing it.

[Inaudible]

MCCAIN: Who?

QUESTION: Karl Rove?


MCCAIN: Oh I, listen, he ah. Nobody denies he's one of the smartest political minds in America. I'd be glad to get his advice. I get advice from a lot of people. I'd be happy to have his advice.

QUESTION: I was wondering about that, right....

MCCAIN: He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don't think I'd want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don't feel like reliving my defeat.

QUESTION: Are you worried about, he uses very aggressive tactics is that something that--



MCCAIN: I've always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics. I've always respected him. We never had any ill will after the initial South Carolina thing. After we had the meeting with President Bush we moved on. I've seen Karl Rove many times when I've been over at the White House. We've always had pleasant conversations.



QUESTION: His tactics don't, you don't disapprove of them? They don't make you nervous?

MCCAIN: It's not so much whether I approve of his tactics or not. It's that he has a very good, great political mind. Any information or advice and council he can give us, I'd be glad to have. I don't think anybody denies his talents. So I'd be glad to get any advice and council. We would obviously decide whether to accept it or not.

[strandinthewind]

And - since you brough up Krigman as a source - here he is proving that McCain's assertion that Obama's refusal to support drilling for oil is an outright lie.

(emphasis supplied)

August 1, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Can This Planet Be Saved?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Recently the Web site The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.

I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.

True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.

Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.

A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.

And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.

In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late.

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.

Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

Mr. McCain’s claim that opponents of offshore drilling are responsible for high gas prices is ridiculous — and to their credit, major news organizations have pointed this out. Yet Mr. McCain’s gambit seems nonetheless to be working: public support for ending restrictions on drilling has risen sharply, with roughly half of voters saying that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral. Incidentally, that’s why I was disappointed with Barack Obama’s response to Mr. McCain’s energy posturing — that it was “the same old politics.” Mr. Obama was dismissive when he should have been outraged.

So as I said, I’m very glad to know that Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet. I just wish I had more confidence that she’s going to succeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/op...hp&oref=slogin

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unclear what you are asserting. Are you asserting that a US Senator, much less one on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot go to Iraq and Europe. Are you actually asserting that. I mean even McCain said he should go



You missed the point. The point is McCain lied in his attack ads and you condone it. Would you feel the same way if the tables were turned.



I am talking about the ads specific reference to drilling for our oil and how that will somehow reduce the price of gas ostensibly now -- that is a lie and a patent one at that Do you not acknowledge that was a lie?

It is a lie in that no one ever said it. The problem will just simply be worse later. Also, the Army Corps of engineers estimates are that we could extract more oil inside of 3 years, not 10. The best thing to do is drill now and also invest in alternative fuels, which is what McCain's plan is. Bush first proposed drilling at the beginning of his first term and the situation now vindicates him, does it not?! The fact is that WE are responsible for high gas prices because we keep electing people who are opposed to it.

As far as the rest goes, Obama lies about McCain every day. I didn't see anything in either ad that was false, just humourous. The ad I just posted was mostly Obama's own words.

The fact is that Obama had no intention of going to Iraq and Europe until McCain pressured him into doing it because he looked bad developing policies on subjects he knew nothing relavent about.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

And - since you brough up Krigman as a source - here he is proving that McCain's assertion that Obama's refusal to support drilling for oil is an outright lie.

(emphasis supplied)

August 1, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Can This Planet Be Saved?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Recently the Web site The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.

I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.

True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.

Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.

A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.

And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.

In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late.

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.

Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

Mr. McCain’s claim that opponents of offshore drilling are responsible for high gas prices is ridiculous — and to their credit, major news organizations have pointed this out. Yet Mr. McCain’s gambit seems nonetheless to be working: public support for ending restrictions on drilling has risen sharply, with roughly half of voters saying that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral. Incidentally, that’s why I was disappointed with Barack Obama’s response to Mr. McCain’s energy posturing — that it was “the same old politics.” Mr. Obama was dismissive when he should have been outraged.

So as I said, I’m very glad to know that Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet. I just wish I had more confidence that she’s going to succeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/op...hp&oref=slogin

I was discussing Obama's rebates and you are switching the subject. Krugman is an authority on economic policy, not on oil drilling. The rebate policy, according to Krugman's own textbooks, outright state that rebates do not work. I used Krugman to specifically refute Obama's tax and rebate policy and not drilling, which Krugman is NOT an expert on.

Here's a list of books by Krugman, all of which contain specific chapters on the failues of Obama's rebates.

http://www.worthpublishers.com/krugmanwells/

[ajmccarrell]

I have to change a previous position. I DO think that development and drilling now would change the prices somewhat immediately. Here's why: oil prices are partially driven by futures markets. Long term futures prices would likely decrease, causing a slowing demand in the bidding for crude. This would create excess supply in the long term, meaning more than one year. It would convince speculators that we are serious about increasing long term supply, which would lower the demand curve to meet at a lower clearing point, resulting in lower prices for processed crude. Secondly, it would put us in a much better bargaining position with OPEC, which would either build more capacity themselves to meet our demand, or start lowering prices to keep us happy in the long term. So, there are two basically sound theories that would predict a modest drop in the price if congress authorized drilling today.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

It is a lie in that no one ever said it. The problem will just simply be worse later. Also, the Army Corps of engineers estimates are that we could extract more oil inside of 3 years, not 10. The best thing to do is drill now and also invest in alternative fuels, which is what McCain's plan is. Bush first proposed drilling at the beginning of his first term and the situation now vindicates him, does it not?! The fact is that WE are responsible for high gas prices because we keep electing people who are opposed to it.

No, it is a lie. Please see the above cited report from W's Energy Dept.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

As far as the rest goes, Obama lies about McCain every day.

Let's see these lies.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I didn't see anything in either ad that was false, just humourous. The ad I just posted was mostly Obama's own words . . . .

They took his words out of context and turned them into hyperbole. It is disingenuous at best and IMO lying. But, you hate Obama - therefore you approve the ads. Again, if Obama ran the ad I mentioned, would you not be outraged. Yet, that ad is actually truer than the ads McCain posted in that McCain actually had skin cancer, is still monitored for it as malignant melanoma is deadliest form of skin cancer, and his has come back at least once.

In the end, I think both ads would be despicable, though the underlying issues are worthy of better discussion. How come I can admit that, but you are loathe to?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I was discussing Obama's rebates and you are switching the subject. Krugman is an authority on economic policy, not on oil drilling. The rebate policy, according to Krugman's own textbooks, outright state that rebates do not work. I used Krugman to specifically refute Obama's tax and rebate policy and not drilling, which Krugman is NOT an expert on.

Here's a list of books by Krugman, all of which contain specific chapters on the failues of Obama's rebates.

http://www.worthpublishers.com/krugmanwells/

I have always been talking about the drilling. That is why I was unclear what you were talkling about.

But, Krugman's expertise need not apply to the drilling because W's own Dept. of Energy (clearly experts ) solidly supports Krugman's comments, which is why Krugman cited it. Are you refuting the DOE's report?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I have to change a previous position. I DO think that development and drilling now would change the prices somewhat immediately. Here's why: oil prices are partially driven by futures markets. Long term futures prices would likely decrease, causing a slowing demand in the bidding for crude. This would create excess supply in the long term, meaning more than one year. It would convince speculators that we are serious about increasing long term supply, which would lower the demand curve to meet at a lower clearing point, resulting in lower prices for processed crude. Secondly, it would put us in a much better bargaining position with OPEC, which would either build more capacity themselves to meet our demand, or start lowering prices to keep us happy in the long term. So, there are two basically sound theories that would predict a modest drop in the price if congress authorized drilling today.

With respect, there is no futures market I now of that goes ten or 20 years in the future

Also, OPEC likely would laugh in our face because the negligible production is a decade or more off and even if it happened now, OPEC would likely just sell more to China and other countries.

Anyway, you cannot win that point, so let's move on shall we.

Why are you so opposed to trying to save the environment and producing alt. energy sources. Clearly we could do it if COngress ignored the oil lobby My goodness, Brazil (a relatively poor country) beat the US at it's own supposed game. That is mind alternatingly ridiculous.

[strandinthewind]

Oh Well - I guess you like Obama now

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

38 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

www.yahoo.com

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oh Well - I guess you like Obama now

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

38 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

www.yahoo.com

I would like him if he supported it wholeheartedly, but in typicaly Obama fashion, he doesn't really commit to it. Just more double talk from the "Messiah".

[omigodstevie]

I think McCain's just too senile these days to realize what a messed up ad that was.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by omigodstevie

I think McCain's just too senile these days to realize what a messed up ad that was.

LOL! That's what the media would have you believe. Obama says there are 57 states, he says he's a member of the Committee of Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs and The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, when he is a member of neither. He also messed up the name of Brownsville, TN, Sunshine, FL, Sioux Cit, SD, and too many other places to list. He said his father served in World War II and that his uncle liberated Auschwitz. Neither of which is true. He believes that there is a "Defense Against Marriage Act" He keeps forgetting to ask for donations to pay off Hillary's debt and has to go back out on stage. He says that American forces are just "air rading villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported on an Obama rally, "It wasn't clear if Barack Obama knew where he was Friday Afternoon..." He stated that he wasn't doing well in Kentucky because of nearby Arkansas, whereas Arkansas doesn't border Kentucky, Illinois does. He stated he won the Michigan Primary, when he wasn't even on the ballot. He said that Israel is a strong friend of Israel, he confused the two langauges of Iraq and Afghanistan, he also incorrectly stated that we were sending aid to AIraq that should go to Afghanistan, which wasn't true. He confused Iran and Israel on numerous occasions. He criticised China for criticising remarks he made that he already apologized for and retracted. He has said he would remove all troops, then later say he would leave troops behind to protect our interests. He has referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as "president". He has cited bills that he "wrote" that he had no part of. He said that if obesity rates were at 1980's levels that the US would save "1 trillion". He said crimes against hispanics doubled in the previous year, when they had not. Basically, he makes Bush look halfway intelligent.

I mean, this is only the campaign and these represent only half of the gaffe's that have been reported in the news. Yet, we see more coverage of McCain being confused, when Obama is obviously confused as well. No one is senile. Chalk it up to the fact that these two men are absolutely exhausted. How many of us could keep our own names straight with all the traveling and campaigning these two guys have to endure.

[omigodstevie]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

LOL! That's what the media would have you believe. Obama says there are 57 states, he says he's a member of the Committee of Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs and The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, when he is a member of neither. He also messed up the name of Brownsville, TN, Sunshine, FL, Sioux Cit, SD, and too many other places to list. He said his father served in World War II and that his uncle liberated Auschwitz. Neither of which is true. He believes that there is a "Defense Against Marriage Act" He keeps forgetting to ask for donations to pay off Hillary's debt and has to go back out on stage. He says that American forces are just "air rading villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported on an Obama rally, "It wasn't clear if Barack Obama knew where he was Friday Afternoon..." He stated that he wasn't doing well in Kentucky because of nearby Arkansas, whereas Arkansas doesn't border Kentucky, Illinois does. He stated he won the Michigan Primary, when he wasn't even on the ballot. He said that Israel is a strong friend of Israel, he confused the two langauges of Iraq and Afghanistan, he also incorrectly stated that we were sending aid to AIraq that should go to Afghanistan, which wasn't true. He confused Iran and Israel on numerous occasions. He criticised China for criticising remarks he made that he already apologized for and retracted. He has said he would remove all troops, then later say he would leave troops behind to protect our interests. He has referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as "president". He has cited bills that he "wrote" that he had no part of. He said that if obesity rates were at 1980's levels that the US would save "1 trillion". He said crimes against hispanics doubled in the previous year, when they had not. Basically, he makes Bush look halfway intelligent.

I mean, this is only the campaign and these represent only half of the gaffe's that have been reported in the news. Yet, we see more coverage of McCain being confused, when Obama is obviously confused as well. No one is senile. Chalk it up to the fact that these two men are absolutely exhausted. How many of us could keep our own names straight with all the traveling and campaigning these two guys have to endure.

haha! I didn't know most of those. Except the Michigan primary one, because I live in Michigan and he definitely was not on that ballot. I don't think either one of them are going to make a good president. If I had to choose, I'd still vote for Obama, though. He wants troops out of Iraq, and McCain doesn't. I'm just a big peace, love, rock n roll kind of girl.

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.

I wonder what type of super hero suit she's going to wear while saving the planet?
Will it include a cape? And more importantly will the movie based on her heroics
beat out Batman at the box office?