14 Comments

• 1. Jeremiah  |  July 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

  http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-list-of-69-documented-lies-and_08.html

• 2. Casper  |  July 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  Which bill did Obama vote for that he attacked McCain for supporting? It’s not mentioned in the article.

• 3. Kurt  |  July 9th, 2008 at 12:20 am

  Obama is changing positions so fast he cant keep up with his own record.

• 4. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 9th, 2008 at 7:32 am

  Obama has a good ad. Very nice.

• 5. JPL  |  July 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  “Obama has a good ad. Very nice.”

  That could only be true in a world where the words “good” and “nice” mean “dishonest.” This latest ad is nothing but an attempt to delude voters into thinking that Obama’s eneregy policies will lead to reduced oil, gas and general prices in the near term, when in fact they’ll have the opposite effect.

  “Which bill did Obama vote for that he attacked McCain for supporting? It’s not mentioned in the article.”

  Both the article and the ad are making pretty obvious reference to the Bush energy bill of 2005, officially known as “the Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which Obama voted for. For text of the bill as passed by Congress, see:

  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109pf4WTJ

  And for a list of votes (showing Obama as a “yea”), see:

  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

  So, yeah, Obama’s ad is in fact attacking McCain for supporting a bill that Obama himself voted for. Pretty dishonest.

• 6. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

  JPL wrong. When I say the video is good, its good. No george style big brother double talk from me. Obama’s ad is very good. And truthful as well.

  “You can’t do it,” McCain 2008

  “Yes, we can” Obama 2008

• 7. Ricorun  |  July 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  Actually, I think JPL has Obama by the short curlies on this one.

• 8. JPL  |  July 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  Of course you believe it’s good, Magnum, but that’s because you either believe Obama’s B.S. about how his energy policy will bring prices down, or you don’t care if it’s B.S. because you consider any propaganda that helps your candidate “good”.

  But in either case, don’t tell me that that stinking heap of B.S. is “truthful.” Obama voted for Bush’s energy bill. The ad suggests otherwise. That’s deceptive. End of story.

• 9. Kahn  |  July 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

  JPL. Magnum believes its good because he uses the Joe Goebbels definition of good. It’s a well done and craft lie.

• 10. NEIL  |  July 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  JPL, my hat is of to you for the truth. If Maggie would just acknowledge the truth instead of running from it like his “boy”.

• 11. phnx  |  July 9th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

  ANd now he’s voted for the FISA bill that he opposed. Its got the Kos Kids all in a tizzy.

• 12. Danish Artist  |  July 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  “I actually did vote for the plan before I was against it.”

  Sound familiar?

• 13. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am

  DRILLING IS A HOAX

  Nancy Pelosi has completely shut the door on expanding our efforts to drill for oil. Just like that, Nancy has decided that companies can use the areas that have already been approved for exploration. Period. End of story. She calls the idea of drilling in areas that are protected “a hoax.” Well isn’t that comforting? Better get used to these high gas prices.

  Just a few points: Yes, there are some areas that have been opened to exploration, and yes, the oil companies have yet to pull any oil out of them. But there are some explanations. One, they’ve found no oil there to extract. Two, if there is oil there the depths involved and other logistical problems make extraction either impossible or far too expensive. The point here is that there are other areas where oil can be extracted economically .. and those are the areas shut down by Democrats.

  Of course, according to Nancy Pelosi, the real problem is the Republicans. She says that efforts to expand drilling are “a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that [Republican] policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.” Really? What policies are those Nancy? Tell me what policies the Republicans have supported that has caused our gas prices compared to Democrats. The truth of the matter is … you’re all failures.

  Here’s what’s going on. Democrats understand that there is a strong likelihood that oil prices will drop – perhaps a lot – if the United States announces that we’re opening up ANWR, the Florida Gulf Coast, the outer continental shelf, the oil shale lands out west and other areas to oil exploration and recovery. OPEC countries would immediately put downward pressure on prices in hopes that they could derail or forestall the new American effort. Democrats also know that the voters in this country have this nasty tendency to blame – or credit – the party controlling the White House for good and bad economic news. Democrats won’t do anything that might allow the Republicans to look good … even if you have to pay five bucks a gallon for gas.

  Aren’t you people just going to love it when Pelosi, Reid and Obama are running the whole show?

  MANY THANKS TO ENVIRONMENTALISTS …

  … for refusing to become a part of the solution. BP wants to expand on oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. That would be a good thing, considering that a shortage of refineries is one of the many reasons why gas prices are so high. But one group of people out there is determined to see that this expansion never happens … environmentalists. On Wednesday of this week, The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit that challenges air permits granted to BP’s refinery by the State of Indiana.

  Just keep these details in mind … This investment by BP has the potential to increase gas and diesel output by 1.7 million gallons a day. It will also create 2,000 construction jobs and 80 new permanent jobs.

  This environmental group also says that the permits granted by Indiana “simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law.” Don’t you love that phrase, “protect the public”?

  Do you remember the story earlier this week about Columbia? It seems that the “human rights” groups working down there were actually not promoting human rights at all. Instead they were working on behalf of the communist FARC rebels. And so it is with the “environmentalists.” Their concern isn’t the environment. Their concern is to slow and, if possible, cripple the American economy. They’re anti-capitalist radicals, not people worried about our environment.

  Liberals putting politics, party and special interest before the people.

• 14. Ricorun  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  Danish Artist (or should I say Neil Boortz): Just a few points: Yes, there are some areas that have been opened to exploration, and yes, the oil companies have yet to pull any oil out of them. But there are some explanations. One, they’ve found no oil there to extract. Two, if there is oil there the depths involved and other logistical problems make extraction either impossible or far too expensive. The point here is that there are other areas where oil can be extracted economically .. and those are the areas shut down by Democrats.

  I think the economics of the issue is an essential point. While drilling domestically would certainly reduce our foreign energy dependence in direct proportion to the amount produced, it won’t affect the price of oil unless it’s actually cheaper than foreign sources. So if the price at the pump is the primary issue, then it becomes important to ask the questions, how much oil are we talking about and at what cost?

  If the answers are “not much” and/or “pretty high”, then maybe Pelosi is right. I’m not saying she is, I’m just saying I don’t know. Not completely anyway, I’m aware of recent analyses by the EIA on ANWR and the outer continental shelves that suggest they wouldn’t help much in terms of price at the pump — a few cents at most. Better than nothing I suppose, but not exactly a game-changer. Also, I’m not sure the latter included shallow, close to shore areas of the Gulf (the study doesn’t explicitly say). And either way whatever is produced domestically would help to reduce our depence on foreign oil. It is mostly for that reason, not price, that I’m for it (where it can be done responsibly). By the same token though, I’m not so naive as to believe it would be anywhere near a complete fix. For that you need other things.

  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

  At any rate, if the argument is that the already leased locations are too expensive to drill on, then that significantly constrains the number of locations that might. And that’s kind of important. It should be kept in mind that oil is a fungible commodity — it’s price is set on the world market. Thus, for an increase in domestic supplies to have an effect on the price at the pump it has to be extracted at a low price. That’s also true of any other supply from any other source. That’s why we have, up to now, preferred to buy our oil from foreign sources. In fact, that BP refinery you (actually, Boortz) mentioned is intending to get their crude from a foreign source: Canada. From an energy security standpoint, Canada is better than anywhere else, but it’s still foreign.

  I heard a good quote on the radio the other day. The person (I don’t remember who) said, “If all politicians were angels we wouldn’t need an informed electorate. But they aren’t, so we do.”