Are You Going to Trust This Man?

This week President Bush and the Repugs are pounding the offshore drilling drum.

Folks, I'd love for oil prices to drop as much as the next person (probably more because my truck is a diesel and gets 15 mpg) but the simple fact is that offshore drilling is not going to lower your gas prices for years, if any. Just a little research will show that the majority of offshore leases aren't being drilled right now anyway.

So why would the Prez want offshore drilling so bad?

He and his cronies are oil men. They are going to take advantage of the nation's problems to set up more money for the future (sounds like Halliburton doesn't it)

When Bust took office the average price at the pump for a gallon of gas was $1.48. Now we get excited when gas "tumbles to $3.89".

Exxon/Mobil announced another record quarter of profits. $ 11.7 Billion. That's right folks, Billion with a B. That is nearly $1500 per second. PER SECOND!

Yet the Repuglican noise machine is making headway. A new poll shows that now 60% of Floridians favor offshore drilling. It goes to prove that something may not be true but if you say it often enough people will fall for it. And of course, John McCain has fallen right into lock step with them, once again proving he is a man of shifting morality when it comes to his presidential chances. Where are the flip flop chants now?

The Democrats had better get their asses in gear and make sure the great unwashed masses understand the true reasons for this offshore drilling push.

Watch the YouTube video at the link below if you have any doubts about who will benefit if offshore drilling is allowed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

If You Tell A Lie Often Enough Does It Become the Truth?

Once again the willingness of the Republican National Committee, and apparently John McCain, to lie is astounding.

I'm not saying Democrats and their candidates don't ever lie, but the Repugs do it and then do it over and over until the brain washed masses start repeating it.

I had hoped McCain would be above it, but let's the latest ploy is showing his true colors and a willingness (as if I didn't know) to do what is necessary to get a few of those dropping poll numbers back. He has spent himself on touting his qualities so now all he can do is attack and try to drag his opponent down. I suppose we shoudl expect nothing less from a capaign that includes a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". 

In the meantime, the Repugs are throwing out Obama's voting history on taxes. According to them Obama voted for tax increases 94 times.

The truth?

Non-partisan FactCheck.org, a source relied on by Cheney in the 2004 debate with John Edwards, has researched and found a slightly different set of facts.

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.

Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year - in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.

The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.

The majority of the 94 votes - 53 of them, including some mentioned above - were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, McCain and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Analysis

In a June 9 press release, Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain's campaign said that "during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes." The same day, the RNC, which researched Obama's votes and is the original source of the claim, issued its own release, saying "Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes" and that he had voted "For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session." A few days later, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and other campaign staffers repeated the charge, which was quoted in various news stories. We suspect we'll be hearing this figure a lot more as the campaign wears on.

If this type of claim sounds familiar, it's because George W. Bush's campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes. " www.factcheck.org

Up until 2000 I would have laughed about this kind of politicing but that election and the atrocious one in 2004 showed how easily the public is misled. It still amazes me that they actually believe some of the stuff spewed from the mouth of the smear machine.

And now...Iran

American forces are and have been operating in Iran since last year, according to a New Yorker article.

"These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program."

My question is, how would the U.S. look upon it if Iran had military forces crossing into the U.S. from Mexico or Canada and formenting revolution?

BushCo would clearly look upon it as an act of war, although they would probably classify it as "terrorism" and "Islamic extremism" since those are the buzz words the Repugs have counted on to sway elections.

Oh, and what is that I hear? Is it the Bush incantation of "WMDs...WMDs...WMDs" which magically cause us to become involved in wars?

Perhaps Bush (and McCain) should spend a little less time campaigning and speechifying and a little more time studying their history. How many empires have been successful fighting wars on three fronts?

Or perhaps they could take a couple of hours to listen to the Sicilian Vizzini's advice in The Princess Bride...

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."

Now we're looking at three?

Did YOU mean to donate to the party?

The AP reports President Bush's "appearance at a Republican National Committee reception Tuesday boosted his fundraising total for the year to about $66 million." More than "100 people attended the evening fundraiser" in McLean, "which raised $750,000 for the RNC."

Just a month ago, Bush attended fund raisers for McCain (you remember...the ones where the press wasn't allowed in because they might get a picture of the President...gag... and the wanna be Panderer in Chief together).

What isn't talked about is the cost to the taxpayers of the trips. Estimates on the cost of operating Air Force One, prior to the last year's increase in fuel costs, ran from $40,000 to $68,000, depending on which source you rely on. Thus, a four hour trip (8 hours total) from Washington to Utah likely ran up a bill of $400,000 - $500,000, not including all of the extra costs such as personnel, extra Secret Service agents for the trip, etc.

I absolutely understand the need for Air Force One and don't begrudge the President his plane, HOWEVER I do believe that if any part of the trip is a fund raiser for a political party or a candidate, then the cost of the trip should be borne by the recipient of the funds. Whether they be Democrat or Republican.

Harry Potter and the 2008 election?

I assume everyone on here has read at least one of the Harry Potter novels and is familiar with the concept so I won't go into any explanations of the characters or the plots. If you haven't read them you should since they are some of the most entertaining reads available.

I was watching the movie version of "The Order of the Phoenix" today and was suddenly struck by the parallels between their situation and the one we face now.

In the movie the people allow themselves to be convinced that a danger isn't real and ignoring it will cause it to go away.

But it doesn't.

Evil, or at least badness, has a hard time existing in the light of day. It won't withstand scrutiny.

That's why the assertions of executive privilege are so revealing.

I am an absolute believer in the separation of powers, which provides the rationale for a President to be able to claim the privilege. However, for this administration to be asserting the claim is disingenuous at best. BushCo have chosen to issue signing statements and expand the powers of the President and Vice-President to the point where they are laughing in the faces of the other branches, at least until they get the majority back in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

Congress is still trying to investigate the firing of the U.S. attorneys for political reasons yet they are resisted at every turn.

We weren't able to find out who shaped the energy policy of this country during the meetings with Cheney. Privileged.

We can't see the emails. Privileged.

And, yet again, the people in the know about crimes having been committed assert privilege.

I was already convinced that this administration was run by and for the privileged and this is just another confirmation.

If you're not blue blood enough, rich enough, or pure blooded enough, you don't count.

Wouldn't Voldemort be proud?

Campaign Financing Furor

Barack Obama announced he was not going to accept public funds for his fall campaign and was immediately lambasted by editors, pundits, and Repuglicans.

Why?

First, Sen. Obama has earlier stated he would use the public finance system if his Republican opponent did the same. The about face on this topic is distasteful to some in the press, and scary to the GOP.

Barack Obama has shown an absolutely incredible ability to raise campaign funds. His average contribution is $88 and through the end of May he had raised $295 million, compared to McCain's $122 million. This is particularly telling when you look at how much longer Obama was in a contested primary than McCain, splitting the ability to raise funds between himself and Sen. Clinton.

The biggest reason for Obama to reject public funding is that it carries a limit on the amount of spending by the candidate that is allowed. If he had chosen to accept the public funds, Obama would have been restricted to spending about $85 million dollars.

The kicker here is that there is no restriction on what can be spent by the special interest groups (such as the infamous Swift Boat bunch) which are typically well funded by big business interests and, hence, Republican oriented.

The Republican National Committee can also throw money into the Presidential race, particulary if they do so in a manner which also qualifies as helping their Senate and House races.

The decision to not use public funding was the correct one for Barack Obama, although his earlier statement that he would do so may be hard for some to take, particularly as Obama casts himself as a reformer.

One other note. The public finance system was put into place so that the corporate interests wouldn't be able to have as much influence in an election, which they are able to work around by using the 521 groups. Obama however has held true to the idea, since most of his support came from the public at low donation levels.

The Republicans are upset because they are masters of loopholes, and were counting on the special interest groups doing their dirty work and the Democratic nominee not having the funds to respond.

Doh. Outsmarted again.

It's Time

Nothing good can come from staying in the middle of the road. It's time to choose a side.

As we all know. the political rhetoric will increase and the "swift boating" will soon begin in earnest.

In the last two elections the common mantra here in Texas was "I don't care for either candidate much, but I chose Bush because...". I think that was a cop out because these same people had the Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on the back of their SUVs. 

Perhaps more than ever, this election is not about "choosing the lesser of two evils". It is about choosing the direction this country will take, perhaps for decades.

While McCain tries to argue against it, a vote for him is equivalent to a vote in favor of the Bush administration's actions for the last 8 years. It's a vote in favor of undeclared wars, unconstitutional actions, and corporate profits being ranked above the good of the citizens. It is a condoning of the breakdown of the principles our country was founded on, including the approval of what is fast becoming a monarchy or, even worse a dictatorship, with little or no separation of powers and a President being able to do as he pleases.

A vote for Barack Obama, as well as the other Democrats running in this fall's elections, is a vote for change and a new direction for this country. A return to the principles that made us great, and a step away from those born with a silver spoon in their mouths being "a little more equal than others".

As I get older I become more concerned with the future and less concerned with the present. I want to be sure that I can explain my actions to my children, and they can then explain it to theirs.

Choose a side and then take action.

But choose wisely.

Offshore Drilling Debate

This is an area where I can see both sides, at least a little. The ban on drilling offshore doesn't apply to most of the Gulf of Mexico so we're used to looking out over the ocean and seeing oil rigs, as well as the inconvenience of an occasional tar ball or oil slick hitting our beaches.

The moratorium on drilling off the West Coast, New England and Florida was put into place by Congress during the tenure of James Watts, Reagan's energy guy who believed nothing was as sacred as allowing big business to do as they would with the environment.

Daddy Bush then extended the ban and President Clinton followed suit, issuing an executive order that applies until 2012.

McCain, as of yesterday, wants the ban lifted just as Bush parroted today.

While I am in favor of lower gas prices, as a person who surfed in the Gulf of Mexico on the day the oil spill hit in 1979 I can attest that the effect, while making the waves glassier and not as choppy, were horrid.

Those people who fall for the line that this will decrease the cost of gas at the pump are in for a rude surprise, as if this is approved it will take years for any effect to be noticeable.

"If we were to drill today realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.

To me, this issue boils down to a question of trust. Do we trust that Bush and McCain, as well as the minions calling for the ban to be lifted, have the best interests of us and our children at heart or is the interest they are looking to protect that of the oil and gas companies already raping, pillaging, and plundering? Do we trust the same administration and mindset whose energy policy was shaped by the likes of Enron to make decisions which will ripple down to my children's children or longer? Is this just a last present to Bush's oil and gas buddies before he leaves office?

I know what I believe.

Anyone who believes that allowing the offshore drilling is a good idea, please leave a comment and let me know your reasoning. I'm always open to different ideas. While you're at it, explain why the Republican controlled Congress didn't life the ban if it is such a good idea.

By the way John McCain, once again you are confirming our worst suspicions about electing you being equivalent to at least another four years of Bush.

Technorati post

http://technorati.com/claim/bbdbm9nmi" rel="me">Technorati Profile

Some things you can't resist

Sometimes I can't help myself.

Eventually I'll take some time to talk about Barack Obama's finer points but they just keep throwing these big fat pitches slowly across the plate aand what's a  blogger gonna do besides swing at it and pontificate.

So I keep talking about the Republicans and their front man, the once well respected John McCain.

The latest strategery and slogan they are attempting (until the gay marriage uproar begins) is that Obama would be Jimmy Carter's second term. I guess this is some kind of lame-ass retort to the argument that McCain is a Bush third term.

But the age and inability to grasp what is happening today is showing.

Jimmy Carter was elected more than 30 years ago.

Lots and LOTS of the voters out there right now weren't even alive when Carter was elected, much less involved enough in politics to know why he was a bad (or a good) President. If you were 18 years old when Carter lost to Reagan, you're now 45 (as am I).

John, I think you would make a good run at the geriatric vote without wasting your time alienating (or being ignored) by the younger generation.

Everything he does points out why he isn't the right choice and why Obama, regardless of what else you can say about him, is the candidate for a new generation.

It just hurts my heart to see McCain embarass himself this way.

Is It Worth the Risk?

Sometimes you should err on the side of caution.

A few years ago there was a big project here in Texas. They were building a particle accelerator to study exactly what happened at the moment the universe was created. As far as I know it had no commercial applications and was being built for pure scientific research.

I have no problem with that.

However, I recently heard that a small percentage of the scientists familiar with the project were concerned that when the accelerator was fired it would create a wormhole and destroy Earth.

Wow.

To me, it seemed like the downside waaaaay outweighed the up side.

What brought this to mind was a discussion about global warming I had with my younger brother the other day.

He is one of the Fox News ditto heads. If they say it, he is perfectly willing to believe it, and worse, repeat it ad nauseum.

I've had the arguments with him about Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. I told him to watch the video the photograph had been grabbed from and he'd discover it wasn't during the pledge but was instead during the Star Spangled Banner.

Etc., etc., etc.

But to me the things you should do to slow global warming are good things anyway. Reduce pollution, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, be more energy efficient. All good things.

So if there is even a slim chance that global warming is real, why take the chance?