whiteneckburned's Blog

Drill here and now is a real good start. Then Look into others safely.

These wind Turbines are a good alternative source for energy. But what will happen when a hurricane hits them? "Why do wind turbine proponent associations such as AWEA persist with claims like "blades coming off were common decades ago, but unheard of today ..." Is the truth too difficult to say? In wind turbine experience in Ontario, turbines installed in 2006 and 2007 manufactured by General Electric Energy Systems (GE sle 1.5 model) had two blade failures which resulted in the blades coming off and traveling some distance from the tower (not just falling straight to the base of the tower). Given the number of turbine years in operation, this is a blade failure rate approximately 4 times higher than the blade failure rate identified in the 2004 study of 43,000 turbine years of experience in Europe documented for the Netherlands agency of Energy and the Environment. In fact, the blade failure rate today is higher, not lower than it was and that is consistent with concerns identified by the NREL in the USA that tall wind turbines might be subject to a new blade failure mechanism due to the wind shear across the larger rotors.

Then, too, remember the replacement program for the blades installed in the Suzlon S88 wind turbines in the USA in this decade due to an increased blade failure rate. (These admittedly not detaching.) Blade failures are not unheard of, and material problems that cause blade failures are still not rare. Keeping to the facts is much simpler than just trotting out a party line of safe safe safe."  What do you think will happen? Would you want to be close to one during a bad storm?

Obama Supports Legalized Infanticide

Born Alive Infants Protection Act: Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

What will he do to other living people who can't defend themselves?

John McCain picks Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP

The Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, has pulled a fast one on his Democratic opponents, who spent much of the last 19 months arguing over whether they'd be the party to have a female on their 2008 presidential ticket.

The rumor is true. As The Ticket reported just before dawn this morning, minutes ago, McCain confirmed that his vice presidential running mate is Sarah Palin, the first female governor of Alaska and the first woman on a national GOP ticket.

And hear this: The 44-year-old Palin, a former city councilwoman, Alaskan mayor, star high school basketball player and beauty queen, is a Republican political maverick (does this sound familiar on a McCain ticket?).

She overthrew her own state party's corrupt establishment in 2005-06 to run without its support and win on a reform ticket against a Democratic former governor, Tony Knowles. See video below.

She's been enjoying statewide popularity ratings of 70% to 80%, not least for her down-to-earth touches, like selling the previous governor's jet plane to fly commercially and driving herself to work in the family Jetta. She's worked against government pork barrel projects; again, a familiar phrase.

Palin, the first Alaskan governor born after statehood, was actually born and raised in Sandpoint, Idaho. She is the mother of five (see family photo below) and is married to a native Alaskan, Todd Palin, who is a seasonal fisherman and an oil field worker offseason. He races snowmobiles on vacation.

The governor is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., an ardent hunter and outdoorswoman (her family has its own float plane) and is a sure bet to please the antiabortion wing of the Republican Party.

When prenatal genetic testing of their fifth child showed he had Down syndrome last spring, the couple went ahead with the birth in May and now talk of him as the joy of their life. (See photo below.) One of ...

... their other four children entered the Army and deploys to Iraq next month.

Palin is also an ardent advocate of developing Alaskan natural oil resources, having recently signed a bill to establish a new trans-Alaska gas pipeline to deliver energy to the lower 48 states.

In the face of opposition from large domestic oil companies, which have ruled Alaskan state politics for many years, Palin supported the 1,700-mile gas line proposed by a Canadian firm.

She also likes to point out that Alaska was admitted to the Union 50 years ago in large part for its trove of natural resources, much of them now locked up, while the country sends billions to other oil-rich nations.

She notes that while the controversial Arctic Natural Wildlife Preserve is roughly 19 million acres of protected federal land, the area actually proposed for oil development with directional drilling is smaller than LAX.

PUMA PAC: The Democrats’ worst nightmare

August 26, 2008

By Bob Collins

MPR - Minnesota's delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver will support Barack Obama for president and say the right words of unity even if it kills them. For several of the ones I've chatted with over the last few weeks, it will.

On Tuesday, the Democrats sent a former national chair of the Clinton campaign to the Minnesota delegation's breakfast meeting to urge the Clinton delegates to get behind Obama.

"When someone puts a mic in our face and asks, 'What about the Hillary supporter, or the person who supported Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich?' We will say 'We are Democrats,' in a way that it will be so shocking to whoever asked the question, that they will just stand back," said Rep. Sharon Jackson Lee of Houston, Texas. "They will say 'Let them just walk on by. There is some kind of glory walking by. There's a light over there.' We are Democrats. We are one. We are one nation. We are empowered! We are strengthened! We are Democrats!"

Rep. Jackson Lee hasn't met Connie Kafka of Wyoming. She is the Democrats' worst nightmare. She's not a Hillary Clinton supporter who'll hold her nose and vote for Obama. She's a Hillary Clinton supporter who's going to work and vote for John McCain.

And she has no problem telling you why.

She doesn't believe Obama loves America.

I talked with her while sitting on the steps of a row house in Denver, next to Red's Anytime Bail Bonds. Puma PAC, an organization of Clinton supporters who will work for John McCain, has rented the space during the convention. Signs for Hillary Clinton share space out front with ones that say Take back our party! Elected not selected.

Kafka says Mrs. Clinton is the "rightful nominee" of the convention. "She won the nationwide popular vote and one of the reasons the caucuses came out different is there was fraud and voter intimidation."

Kafka says the Clinton delegates to the convention, including those from Minnesota, have little choice but to back Obama because they're being told they have no future in the Party if they don't. And these are party insiders to whom a powerful role in the party power structure matters.

"They are still intimidating and strong-arming people," she insists. "What we're hearing is delegates are being taken into rooms and being browbeaten, being told 'there will be no future in the party for you if you don't fall in line.'"

She knows Sen. Clinton is in the same boat and has little choice but to support Obama. "I don't believe in my heart that she believes in her heart that Sen. Obama can lead this country," says Kafka, who has voted Democrat for 38 years and now vows to vote a straight Republican ticket..

"Anyone who claims to want to lead this country should at least begin by loving and respecting this country," she said.

"You don't believe that he does?" I asked.

"I do not believe that he does," she said. "His greatest gaffe was when he said, 'this is America, the greatest country in the world, now join me in changing it.'"

She acknowledges that Sen. McCain is unlikely to come close to pushing the issues that made Kafka support Clinton in the first place. "I believe that Senator McCain at least begins by having a general respect and love for this country, its people, traditions, and a love of the armed forces."

"Everything he's done has been a coldly calculated move up the ladder of politics," she said.

When the Democrats leave Denver on Friday morning, they'll be taking a headache home, too: Puma PAC, the political action committee formed by Kafka's colleagues.

Angry Clinton supporters toast McCain, roast Obama

August 27, 2008

By Ed Hornick

CNN - The last place Kathy Archuleta could have ever imagined she'd spend the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, was at a happy hour sponsored by the Republican Party.

 1 of 3  But the 54-year-old Democrat joined several other Hillary Clinton supporters, along with volunteers and officials from John McCain's campaign, at a Happy Hour for Hillary.

The event, sponsored by the Republican National Committee and approved by the McCain campaign, was a chance for McCain and Clinton supporters to come together for one cause: their opposition to Barack Obama's candidacy.

"Four years ago, if you said we'd be at a Hillary happy hour at the DNC, I would have called you crazy. But today is a great opportunity for people who … agree that Sen. Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to be president of the United States," said McCain campaign regional communications director Tom Kise.

As Michelle Obama was delivering her "One Nation" unity speech on the convention floor several blocks away, more than 100 people gathered at the Paramount Café in downtown Denver.

In a side room, both groups of supporters discussed politics, sports and the convention while sipping cocktails and munching on tacos and a cheese spread.

But there was nothing unified for these Clinton supporters who walked across the aisle or, in this case, the cafe Monday night.

Archuleta, who hails from Denver, has been a registered Democrat all her life — until now.

"I'm a registered Republican … for the first time in my voting life," Archuleta said. "No Obama for me. I'm voting for John McCain."

"He reminds me of what the Jimmy Carter era was like. … If they think Jimmy Carter had it bad, just wait if Obama gets into the White House. That will be bad news in so many ways," she added.

Obama's relative lack of experience in national politics — long seen as his Achilles heel — was something that Clinton supporters, Republicans and independents attending the happy hour rallied behind.

"His lack of experience has been demonstrated so painfully every time he opens his mouth just about. … You cannot have good judgment without experience; that's how you get it," said 58-year-old Marnie Delano of New York.

Adam Edwards, a 20-year-old Clinton supporter, said that although the New York senator "was the stronger candidate," voters may have "just discredited her because of some imagined baggage she carried from her husband's administration."

Leland Kritt, a McCain supporter who made his way to Denver from Los Angeles, California, said Obama's message of 'change' is simply flawed.

"The simple fact remains, change will occur anyway, no matter who the president is. For every man, woman and child, change will happen. Question is: who is best able to handle that change?" the 51-year-old Republican said.

The McCain campaign has been aggressively courting Clinton's voters in recent days, especially after Obama announced Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as his running mate Saturday.

Shortly after the announcement, the Arizona senator's campaign released a TV ad in several swing states that used video of Biden criticizing Obama as too inexperienced to be president.

And just as the Democrats' convention was getting started in Denver, both the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee unveiled four TV ads geared toward Clinton supporters.

The most recent McCain ad involves the famous Hillary Clinton "3 a.m." spot and will be aired during the convention. The 30-second spot uses footage from Clinton's original ad and declares, "Hillary's right."

The ad, set to run in key battleground states and specifically in Denver this week, also goes a step further than the New York senator's original ad, explicitly detailing the national security threats America faces.

Clinton, speaking to member of the New York delegation in Denver on Monday, said she was opposed to Republicans using her words against Obama.

Meanwhile, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken August 23-24 found that 56 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton, with 40 percent having an unfavorable view. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. iReport.com: Are you in Denver?

So while Clinton's die-hard supporters are in Denver in full force, the poll showed that her negative approval rating is very high among registered voters nationwide.

But there is some bad news for Obama. The poll showed that 66 percent of Clinton supporters — registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee — are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

And nowhere was that statistic more prevalent than at the RNC-sponsored happy hour for Hillary.

Clinton supporters-turned-McCain converts at the event were not just angry at Obama's campaign; they're furious with the Democratic Party's nomination process this year.

"The DNC really pushed [Barack Obama] on us. Now they've left us with two choices: somebody who has no substance or a Republican," said Jessi Cleaver, 35, of New York. "And these are terrible choices, and they worked hard to select this candidate. … We're watching the DNC pick this candidate for us."

It's a point Mitt Marr agreed with.

"We're taking a stand and not backing down. It's 'we the people,' not 'we the DNC.' We are standing up for what is right. I know in my heart," said the woman from Sugar Land, Texas, who would give her age only as 50-something.

As the convention heats up and tensions remain high over how to make sure Clinton's 18 million or so votes are counted, supporters will rally by her side, even if their pick in November is her enemy.

Source:  CNN

JOHNMCCAIN.COM - Tonight, the McCain campaign issued the following statement from Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, on Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

"Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President."

BARACK OBAMA'S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS

MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: "America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)5/7/08)Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain." (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, "McCain's Core Advantage," The Washington Post, 6/24/08)Third Way: It's All In The Tone," Politico, 6/30/08)

NPR's Juan Williams: Barack Obama "Doesn't Have The Record" Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR'S JUAN WILLIAMS: "You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume,"

Watch:

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen: "There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically." "Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the

Politico's Jonathan Martin: "He's pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being 'post-partisan?'" (Jonathan Martin, "Obama's

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): "His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion." "Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, 'unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'" (Tim Talley, "Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse," The Associated Press, 6/10/08)

"The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …" (Editorial, "Obama's Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?" USA Today, 1/28/08)

In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)

In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have "The Equipment They Need In Battle." OBAMA: "As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: "These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. … But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush "For The Most Part." REPORTER: "For a couple of days, they've been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that's going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?" OBAMA: "I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there." (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/08)

Watch Barack Obama">Watch Barack Obama" />#39;s KMOV Interview

The New York Times' David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are "Just Factually Inaccurate." "Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you." (David Brooks, Op-Ed, "Calling Dr. Doom," The New York Times, 6/3/08)

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh: "As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq." "In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on 'Law and Order,' John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to 'Iraqification' — that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam 'if we lose popular support in the United States.' The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. 'I read y our speech,' harrumphed Rumsfeld (that 'must have been an enjoyable experience for him,' McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They 'believed there was no need for additional troops,' McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. 'I'd like to see the president fully engaged,' McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of 'more details of what's going on.' As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush's current 'surg e' is that if it had occurred back then — when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years — it might well have succeeded." (Michael Hirsh, "Why McCain's Collapse Matters," Newsweek, 7/26/07)

John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

John McCain Is "Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush" On Climate Change. "On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush's re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration's stance 'terribly disappointing.' McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming." (William March, "McCain Bucks Ties To Bush," The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes We've Made "Great Progress" And Families Aren't Hurting. OBAMA: "He said that our economy has made 'great progress' under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is "Misleading" And "Distorts" John McCain's Words. "The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: '[T]here's been great progress economically.' The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. … McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush's time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn't be enough to comfort families 'facing these tremendous economic challenges.' His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites 'challenging times' and 'enormous difficulties.' The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks." (D'Angelo Gore, "Distorting McCain's Remarks," FactCheck.org, 8/19/08)

In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In "Tough Times" And Families Are Facing "Tremendous Economic Challenges." Bloomberg's Peter Cook: "I'm going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?" McCain: "Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they're going to be able to keep their home or not. They're figuring out whether they're — why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There's no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. "I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America's economy are strong. We're the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven't lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still — keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world." (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/08)

Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain's Full Response:

ABC News: Barack Obama Proved "He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them" When He Cited The McCain Quote. "Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: 'John McCain went on television and said that there has "been great progress economically" over the last seven and a half years.' Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain's Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is 'no comfort' to struggling families." (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, "Obama Twists McCain On Economy," ABC News, 4/18/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: "Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime — by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less — because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama: "I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013." "'I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families,' Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has "No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending." "Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending." (Editorial, "Failure Of Nerve," Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)

The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not "Even Trying" To Balance The Budget And "Frankly Says He's Not Sure He'd Bring It Down At All In Four Years." "Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

The National Journal's John Maggs: "[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A 'Pay-As-You-Go' Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard." (John Maggs, "Obama On The Economy," The National Journal, 5/31/08)

Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama "Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of" His Proposals. "The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do." (Peter Nicholas, "Adding Up The Cost Of Obama's Agenda," Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)

The New York Times' David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. "Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It's impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration." (David Brooks, Op-Ed, "No Whining About The Media," The New York Times, 4/16/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

The Detroit News: Barack Obama's Energy Plan Will "Do Nothing To Answer The Nation's Long-Term Needs." "The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama's energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they'll do nothing to answer the nation's long-term needs." (Editorial, "Obama's Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism," The Detroit News, 8/5/08)

The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. "When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. 'It's an idea to get them through an election,' Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own." (Editorial, "Tapping Tired Wells," The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: "The politics may have changed, but the facts haven't. The accuracy of Sen. McCain's original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)

Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: "I think John McCain's proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/08)

Barack Obama Called John McCain's $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A "Gimmick." Obama: "In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: "That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn't make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Washington Post: Barack Obama's Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To "Higher Prices At The Pump." "But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump — thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing." (Editorial, "Tapping Tired Wells," The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: "I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. "What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. … But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our 'taxable income.' The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that 'people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.' In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000." ("The $32,000 Question," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

FactCheck.org: "Obama's Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes." "Certainly Obama's votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes." ("The $32,000 Question," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn't Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: "Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, 'bogus.' They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income." (Fox News' "America's Election Headquarters," 7/30/08)

The New York Times: Barack Obama's "Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year." "FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had." (Michael Cooper, "McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP," The New York Times, 7/30/08)

Source:  John McCain

Inflating Obama’s record will not resolve doubts.

August 28, 2008

By Karl Rove

WEEKLY STANDARD - The Democratic National Convention exposed the central defect of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy: the absence of compelling evidence he is up to the job of president. The exposé comes courtesy of a bad habit of his running mate, Senator Joe Biden. When in doubt, Mr. Biden exaggerates. And this week, he did a lot.

Voters expect candidates to embellish, but only so much. Go beyond acceptable stretching and a candidate may squander his most precious political possession: credibility. Mr. Obama may be on this perilous path.

America heard Mr. Obama's running mate last Saturday exclaim, "I watch with amazement as he came to the Senate. I watch with amazement!" Mr. Biden's hyperkinetic praise is what we expect a running mate to offer his benefactor at the top of the ticket.

But Saturday and again Wednesday night, Mr. Biden praised Mr. Obama for three specific legislative accomplishments. One of them was an ethics bill, called by Mr. Biden in his acceptance speech "the most sweeping in a generation." However, many critics–including Hillary Clinton–criticized it as weak. For example, under Mr. Obama's bill, lobbyists may buy politicians meals if they are eating standing up but not if they're sitting down. Mr. Obama's bill didn't ban privately funded travel for congressmen or authorize an independent investigation office. But Mr. Obama did help draft, negotiate, and push the legislation that passed. The other two supposed accomplishments are more problematic.

Saturday, Mr. Biden asserted Mr. Obama "made his mark literally from day one, reaching across the aisle to pass legislation to secure the world's deadliest weapons," a claim similar to one Mr. Obama made earlier in the campaign. Wednesday night, Mr. Biden was more expansive, claiming Mr. Obama was a leader "to pass a law that helps keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." This implied a big, important controversial measure, passed with difficulty after the intervention of an extraordinary leader.

In reality, the Lugar-Obama Bill was passed on a voice vote on December 11, 2006. It was so routine, there was no recorded vote. The media didn't consider it important or controversial. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post reported its Senate passage, though the Post ran an op-ed by Senators Lugar and Obama the week before it was approved. It was not the subject of a story on the CBS, ABC, or NBC evening news–not when it passed, not when it was signed, not ever. No story about it appeared in Roll Call or The Hill, the daily newspapers that cover the minutiae of Congress. It drew only one squib in Congressional Quarterly–and that story didn't mention Obama, just Lugar. The Bush administration supported it. The legislation required the administration to report to Congress within 180 days "on proliferation and interdiction assistance" to secure the mostly conventional weapons stocks littering the nations born from the collapsed Soviet empire. It created a new State Department office to support the Bush administration's "Proliferation Security Initiative" aimed at weapons of mass destruction and conventional weaponry and authorized $110 million to fund it. But this legislation didn't require a profile in courage to co-sponsor or hard work and powerful persuasion to pass, as Mr. Biden implied.

Saturday, Biden proclaimed, "But I was proudest, I was proudest, when I watched him spontaneously focus the attention of the nation on the shameful neglect of America's wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Hospital." The problem for Mr. Biden (and the object of his praise, Mr. Obama) is the problems at Walter Reed were revealed in articles in the Washington Post, starting February 18, 2007. Unless Mr. Obama writes for the Washington Post under the nom de media of Anne Hull or Dana Priest, he didn't "spontaneously focus the attention of the nation." The two reporters did. The legislation to correct the shortcomings emerged from a Senate committee Mr. Obama doesn't serve on, and he played no significant role in drafting it. Mr. Obama is not the real hero of the Walter Reed turn-around, despite Mr. Biden's extravagant claims.

Like Mr. Biden, Michelle Obama's speechwriter could not resist hyping her husband's work. Monday night, Mrs. Obama talked about "what he's done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and benefits and health care–including mental health care." This is an apparent reference to the Dignity For Wounded Warriors Act, a bill Mr. Obama introduced that never made it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, despite its Democratic majority. Americans missed the spectacle of Mr. Obama "fighting to ensure" its passage because he was missing in that particular battle. If he was fighting, he was ineffectual: He couldn't even convince fellow Democrats this bill was worth passing, if for no other reason than to help his candidacy.

When candidates lack real accomplishments, they and those around them exaggerate what they have done, puff their performance, hype the difficulty of their activities and depict their work as far more substantial than it really is. But if you describe yourself as something you're not, or as having done things you haven't, a critical press corps may be aroused and the contrast with what people believe to be true may be jarring.

Mr. Obama should be way ahead in the race for the presidency, but this week has seen five polls showing the race essentially dead even. Deep doubts remain about whether Mr. Obama is up to the job. His running mate and his handlers know this. So they are puffing his résumé, padding his accomplishments and claiming the work of others to reassure
voters Mr. Obama is up to the duties of the Oval Office. It may work. But the American people are particular about who they elect as president. And voters do not tolerate candidates whose opinion of ordinary citizens is so low they think they can get away with misleading them.

Obama Is Wrong On Energy

Obama has repeatedly opposed any new efforts to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and to lower gas prices. He refuses to allow new drilling which would lower speculative oil prices immediately. Gas prices are hurting our economy and making foreign nations like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela rich.

Barack Obama is:

opposed to any new offshore (50+ miles off the coast) exploration or drilling (where 19 billion barrels of oil exist, about 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia) opposed to drilling in ANWR (10+ billion barrels of oil), no matter how clean or new tech it is opposed to any new "clean coal" technologies promising to fulfill American energy needs. America is considered the "Saudi Arabia of Coal" estimated to have 27% of the world's coal reserves opposed to any new nuclear power plants in America, even though France is demonstrating it can be done cleanly and cheaply opposed to a gas tax holiday to lower gas prices opposed to incentivizing American companies to develop more efficient electric vehicles Five Reasons Not to Vote for Obama

Traditionally, the presidential election is a time to select a candidate, to vote for someone. The 2008 election will prove to be a different sort of election, however: one wherein a conservative’s focus might not necessarily be who to vote for, but who to vote against. Barack Obama is a dangerous political opponent for John McCain. This isn’t necessarily because he poses a strong threat as a candidate, but because his following’s loyalty borders on fanatic obsession. John McCain might not be your ideal Republican candidate, but he deserves your vote precisely for who he isn’t: Barack Obama. What follows are the five reasons I’m voting for John McCain and against Barack Obama.

Reason #1

If Barack Obama is defined by the company he keeps, he’s a racist, anti-American extremist. From Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers to Bernadine Dohrn, just enough of Obama’s skeletons have come out of the closet and endorsed him to cast a cloud of danger over his electability as the president of the United States. Indeed, much of Obama’s primary campaign has been fraught with various allies from Obama’s past and present dancing into the media spotlight. Then, after a fair amount of unsavory press, Obama apologizes for and separates himself from the same friends he aligned himself with mere months earlier. We need only consider Obama’s remarks about Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his mentor, then the exposure of Trinity United Church and Obama’s subsequent denouncement of Wright’s anti-American speech to recall the pattern. Known terrorists, both domestic and international, endorse Barack as their man. Young Palestinian men lobby on his behalf in earnest. They do this because Obama in office serves their own interests.

Reason #2

Obama’s patriotism is questionable. In an election, we naturally compare one candidate to another. One candidate doesn’t wear a flag pin. One candidate doesn’t hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One candidate has no military experience. One candidate’s idea of foreign policy is to negotiate with enemies who wish to obliterate our existence over a cup of coffee. The role of the president should be filled by someone who loves our country, who values our history, and who has proven that he is ready to die to serve our country. The role of the First Lady should similarly be filled by someone who honors and respects the country her husband serves. It doesn’t count when your patriotism begins just as your husband enters the presidential campaign. If Obama’s friends don’t derail his campaign, his own wife and life partner surely will.

Reason #3

Obama is a skilled orator, a trait that has earned him a devout following in a party largely comprised of atheists. When Barack Obama opens his mouth to speak, liberals’ ears seem to filter out the message and listen only to the words in a hypnotic trance. Their devotion to Obama mimics that of radical Christians to Jesus Christ. Criticize Obama to a liberal Obama supporter, and it’s as if you’ve questioned the existence of God, only the resulting argument is much angrier and holds far less intellectual merit. It’s more like telling an environmentalist that chaining himself to a tree won’t save the earth, or informing a war protester that no one in Washington cares what he or she thinks.

It isn’t Obama’s following that is of the most concern, however. A public speaker as smooth as Obama will inspire fans on his own talents. Let’s remember, however, that Barack Obama was a lawyer before he became a senator. And, like most lawyers, his words are best when rehearsed. However, Obama crumbles under pressure, and his improvised remarks typically fall flat or offend. We need only recall the fallout from the “bitter small-town Americans”, “typical white person” and “Can’t I just eat my waffle?” to recall Obama’s propensity to fumble the ball when he’s running an unscripted play with nary a playbook in sight. It’s one thing to offend foreign, enemy nations during wartime; offending majority populations of the country you represent is another, especially as you align for their vote in November. Judging from the multitude of politically incorrect missteps in his primary campaign, Obama seems to think that he doesn’t need votes from entire segments of the population; namely, the middle of the country. This blatantly blase attitude must cost him the election to teach Democrats that conservative minds will not be discounted.

Reason #4

Obama’s politics and ideals are too far skewed on the liberal end of the political scale to strike a balance with Americans as a whole. No matter the political affiliation of a sitting president, his job is to appease the majority of his constituents, the American public. Radical liberals clamor for our next president to be a polar opposite to George W. Bush; conservatives know that accomplishing this won’t automatically fix the ills that plague our country. The checks and balances within our legislature make any change a gradual one, over many years. Amid a tenuous situation in the Middle East, too liberal of a response by our next president casts the United States as lily-livered pansies, too afraid of hurting feelings to eradicate terrorism. Extreme left-wing Democrats either don’t realize this or don’t care, and Obama is their man. If he gets into office, small-town typical white Americans had better cling to their guns and religion, because Obama will muck up civilian rights to both.

Reason #5

Obama’s experience is lacking. This isn’t to say that a junior senator can’t be president one day. The presidency is fraught with unique challenges, however, ones that can’t be adequately prepared for in any branch of the government. In the business world, even the best candidates from upper management must pay their dues before aspiring to become CEO. The team captain must prove his or her leadership potential over several seasons to earn that ‘C’ on a uniform. In every other successful realm of the American culture, experience yields a top leadership position. Why should the presidency, the most historically esteemed and influential position in the country, be any different? Obama’s inexperience lands him into trouble with his improvised remarks and shaky responses to tough issue-based questions. His inexperience causes him to make crucial errors and oratory missteps under pressure. He is simply not ready. Democrats can clean up his image and repackage him in 2012.

In every endeavor, Barack Obama has flouted the intellect of the constituents whose vote he aims to obtain. He’s dazzled his starry-eyed followers with well-crafted speeches that render them vociferously loyal; in cult-like fashion, they zealously support Obama to all who will listen. Separate Obama from his gilded memorized passages, and his words clang jarringly and offend like a cat walking across piano keys at twilight. Pin him in a corner with tough questions on issues and his allies, and he strikes like a caged animal trapped in a corner. Obama’s speeches act like a mirror through which radical liberals see exactly what they want to see in their next president. It is up to the rest of us to peer through the looking-glass and see Obama for the inexperienced, unsavory presidential candidate he is.

Post written by Marissa who blogs at Ivy League Conservative Blog.

Marissa graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2006. Six months later, she helped open and manage two multimillion-dollar restaurants in Atlantic City, New Jersey with the Starr Restaurant Organization. A food, beverage and travel writer by nature, Marissa has been published nationally in both lifestyle print magazines and on Internet lifestyle websites. In March 2008, she began Ivy League Conservatives as a response to the overwhelming liberal culture she experiences in metropolitan postgraduate life. Marissa is a nomad in search of her own modern-day Xanadu, and currently writes from her hometown in Los Angeles, California.

 

 

What is this Obama? Maybe this is his brother living in a mud hut.

We are a multiracial team of Democrats dedicated

 

 

 

About Contender for Democratic Presidential Candidate 2008,

 

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

 

By now its clear. There’s so little substance to Obama, that he may be better understood as a Product and a Brand than Politician, Citizen, and Man.

 

We at Stop Obama want to know how this ObamaBrand was made, and how it’s being sold.

 

We will look at media bias, and self-promotion.

We will challenge the Obama image through scrutiny and analysis. We will ask tough questions about Obama’s past, present, his associations, and identity.

 

We will pursue answers.

 

We will debate Obama, and the values his product embodies.

 

 

We will provide the information needed to Stop his nomination for Democratic Presidential Candidate.

 

 

 

We encourage everyone to use our material and you do not have to attribute it to us if you don’t want to. We care for the truth, not our own ambitions.

 

 

We are not affiliated with any Democratic candidate, although our editors have clear preferences. We are dedicated Democrats who believe in the inviolability of American democracy, and the democratic process. We stand for the absolute necessity of a competent and capable president, a man or woman of integrity and content. In order for the Democratic party’s nomination procedures to produce such candidates, it must be protected against the spin, marketing, pr, and media hype which undermine critical deliberation, and expose our country to the sways of manipulated sentiment. People led astray by sight and sound are capable of choosing incompetent candidates, or worse, of inaugurating incompetence into the White House.

 

          

    

 

We are Republicans on a Mission to Raise the Value of Black American’s Political Capital.

For over 40 years black voters have staunchly aligned themselves with the Democratic Party on Election Day. However an increasing number have begun questioning the wisdom of supporting social policies rooted in low expectations and government dependency, economic policies that stifle job creation, personal savings and investments, and education policies that prevent parental choice in school placement. Republicans for Black Empowerment has the mission to raise awareness of the benefits offered by conservative solutions to the black community’s concerns.

The Goal of Republicans for Black Empowerment

The goal of Republicans for Black Empowerment is to tap the personal potential of Black Americans. To that end, RBE seeks to provoke greater critical thinking, increase the number of black Republican candidates and to empower individuals and groups to take leadership roles within their community and the GOP by executing a program aligned with four long-term goals: 1. Provide a national network allowing black conservatives to discover one another and facilitate dialogue between individuals and groups with shared political views. 2. Establish grassroots networks of black GOP activists by encouraging and assisting in the formation of state and local black Republican organizations. 3. Provide public and online forums for conservatives to exchange ideas and help raise awareness of alternative political solutions through educational activities within the black community. 4. Support political candidates and public policies aligned with improving the lives of blacks, by generally emphasizing reduced government dependency, personal savings and investment, educational reform, economic empowerment, and equal opportunity.

Become a Leader. We Will Help.

Leadership is not a job you apply for. It’s something you develop within yourself by taking chances and making an effort to connect with people. Anybody can become a respected national or community figure by making a difference for regular people. We are here to build the foundations for anyone who is ready to get involved and positively influence their community. Our membership is comprised of a grassroots coalition of concerned citizens from all ethnic groups and regions of the United States. Please join and support our initiatives to change the political fabric of our nation. Contact us and we will build an important connection.

Headlines

When the man is one of us July 10 I’m confused as to why any African American would be a Republican July 3 African Americans in the GOP June 5 Black support for GOP may hinge on nomination fight May 8 McCain vows ‘never again’ for post-Katrina blunders Apr. 24 Detroit: The City That Liberalism Ruined Mar. 31
McCain Gives Unvarnished View of His Past Apr. 5 Open Forum Discussion: Why Republican Mar. 4
On ‘Readiness Feb. 28 Obama selling false hope and false dreams Feb. 22 Texas Conservative Republicans Still Want Huckabee Feb. 18 Students Struggle at Being Young, Black Republicans Feb. 12 Black Republicans’ Legacy Feb. 7 Black Conservatives: Don’t Give Up, Huckabee Feb 4

Description: Crude Oil (petroleum), simple average of three spot prices; Dated Brent, West Texas Intermediate, and the Dubai Fateh, US$ per barrel

Month Value

Aug 2003

29.68 Sep 2003 26.88 Oct 2003 29.01 Nov 2003 29.12 Dec 2003 29.95 Jan 2004 31.40 Feb 2004 31.32 Mar 2004 33.67 Apr 2004 33.71 May 2004 37.63 Jun 2004 35.54 Jul 2004 37.93 Aug 2004 42.08 Sep 2004 41.65 Oct 2004 46.87 Nov 2004 42.23 Dec 2004 39.09 Jan 2005 42.89 Feb 2005 44.56 Mar 2005 50.93 Apr 2005 50.64 May 2005 47.81 Jun 2005 53.89 Jul 2005 56.37 Aug 2005 61.87 Sep 2005 61.65 Oct 2005 58.19 Nov 2005 54.98 Dec 2005 56.47 Jan 2006 62.36 Feb 2006 59.71 Mar 2006 60.93 Apr 2006 68.00 May 2006 68.61 Jun 2006 68.29 Jul 2006 72.51 Aug 2006 71.81 Sep 2006 61.97 Oct 2006 57.95 Nov 2006 58.13 Dec 2006 61.00 Jan 2007 53.40 Feb 2007 57.58 Mar 2007 60.60 Apr 2007 65.10 May 2007 65.10 Jun 2007 68.19 Jul 2007 73.67 Aug 2007 70.13 Sep 2007 76.91 Oct 2007 82.15 Nov 2007 91.27 Dec 2007 89.43 Jan 2008 90.82 Feb 2008 93.75 Mar 2008 101.84 Apr 2008 109.05 May 2008 122.77 Jun 2008 131.52

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in the United States, the other being the Republican Party. It is the oldest political party in the United States and arguably the oldest party in the world.[1]HYPERLINK \l "wp-_note-1"[2]

Since the 2006 midterm elections the Democratic Party is the majority party for the 110th Congress; the party holds an outright majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate. Democrats also hold a majority of state governorships and control a plurality of state legislatures. It is currently the largest political party with 72 million registered members, 42.6 percent of the electorate.[[#wp-_note-Neuhart, P. (22 January, 2004). Why politics is fun from catbirds' seats. USA Today'.|[3]]] The democratic base comprises two widely diverging demographics. On one hand, there are those in the working class, who are commonly conservative on social issues. On the other hand, it includes well-educated and relatively affluent liberals.[4]

The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic as well as social matters. The economically left-leaning activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party's economic agenda since 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.

Obama to CBO Revenue Baseline: Nuts—and He's Right! by J.D. Foster, Ph.D. WebMemo #2019

Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has laid out enough of a fiscal blueprint as part of his presidential campaign to allow us to read his intentions: higher taxes on the rich, more spending, slower economic growth, and silence on the critical issues of Medicare and Social Security's long-term plight. There is little in Obama's future plans that do not cause conservatives consternation. Surprisingly, though, in one respect his plans should already be causing real heartburn--for congressional Democrats.

The relevant elements of Obama's fiscal plans are these: He intends to let expire those elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that benefit taxpayers with over $250,000 in income; he intends to preserve all the other elements of the tax cuts, plus add a couple more for some low-income workers and working seniors; and he supports the PAYGO budget rules that require new tax cuts and new spending increases to be offset with an equal amount of tax hikes and spending reductions.

Put together, these elements make for a coherent budget policy only if one also abandons the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revenue baseline against which PAYGO operates. Refusing to be bound by the CBO revenue baseline makes eminent sense because, as aptly described by one of Obama's economic gurus, Austin Goolsbee, it is "completely unrealistic."[1] On this point Obama and Goolsbee are right, especially with respect to the CBO revenue baseline. This is why congressional Democrats have a problem, and it provides further justification for CBO to fix its baseline.

PAYGO, Baselines, and Baseball

Whether it's baseball, city driving, or federal budgeting, rules play a central role in determining outcomes. Congress created PAYGO rules many years ago to bring some order and discipline to the budget process. PAYGO rules state that tax cuts or certain spending increases must be matched by an equal amount of tax hikes or spending cuts. Consequently, PAYGO is the grand defender of the status quo as it makes popular changes in tax or spending policy harder to enact.

Making PAYGO operational requires some policy baselines against which to measure change for both revenues and spending. These baselines are provided by the CBO.

Goolsbee's comment and Obama's plan tell us that Obama understands full well that the CBO revenue baseline is fundamentally flawed.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Sometimes the statute governing spending policy expires. Farm programs expire, as does SCHIP, the highway program, and even annual appropriations. When CBO constructs its spending baseline, it sensibly ignores that the statute expires and assumes instead that current policy--and therefore current spending levels--will continue because CBO assumes the statute will be renewed. CBO's revenue baseline, in contrast, is constructed following the statute and assumes those laws will not be renewed. CBO's inconsistency in assuming that the expiring laws governing spending policy will be renewed while those governing tax policy will not be renewed is unfounded in theory and unfair in practice, as it creates an inherent bias in favor of higher taxes and higher spending.

Under the flawed CBO revenue baseline, the expiration of the tax cuts shows up in the baseline as a jump in revenues. This causes two big problems for Obama. On the one hand, under PAYGO, extending most of the tax cuts as he suggests would require either a huge offsetting tax hike or a huge offsetting spending cut. He has proposed neither.

On the other hand, his proposal to let some current provisions affecting the rich expire raises no money for the Treasury and so cannot offset his many spending proposals under PAYGO rules. The CBO revenue baseline puts Obama on the wrong side of a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.

Conservatives have few grounds for agreement with Obama's agenda, but on these points we should be in complete agreement:

The CBO revenue baseline is wrong; Preserving current law is not a policy to cut taxes; and Allowing any of the current law tax provisions enacted in 2001 or 2003 to expire is a tax hike.

Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, disagree with all three points. And for them, it's a matter not of future policy but of current legislation. Congress is again faced with extending the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch and a slate of other tax provisions--such as the R&D tax credit--that periodically expire. Adhering to the CBO revenue baseline, extensions of the AMT patch and the R&D tax credit are shown as tax cuts. Of course, as Obama's position makes plain, preserving current policy means that nothing has changed, so it results in neither a tax cut nor a tax increase.

But congressional Democrats argue that, under the budget rules, in order to avoid a tax hike on some taxpayers, they have to raise taxes on others. This faux fiscal discipline is, of course, nonsense. Congressional Democrats are merely hiding behind the rhetoric of fiscal discipline to try to sneak through a massive tax hike--and then do so again next year and again the year after. If they believe in raising taxes, they should have the courage of their presidential nominee and just say so. They are wrong to try to raise taxes, but they are even more wrong to pretend otherwise by hiding behind a completely unrealistic CBO revenue baseline.

Joining Forces to Fix the CBO Baseline

It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Perhaps to his own surprise, Obama has apparently joined forces with conservatives to correct the CBO revenue baseline. Maybe this also demonstrates that Washington is ready to have an honest debate about tax and spending policy. A demonstration of that honesty could start by Congress passing an AMT patch and an R&D tax credit extension without trying to sneak through a massive tax hike in the process.

It is past time for Congress to tell the CBO to fix its revenue baseline methodology. Senator Obama and his people get it. Why don't congressional Democrats?

J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the

Pelosi may have paid $3.86 per share for a stock that sold at $14 in the initial offering!