Obama playing a dangerous game

[azamugg]

By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 8, 2008

In one of the numbers from “Fiddler on the Roof,” Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: “We haven’t got the man ... we had when we began.”

Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived.

His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. “The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?Thankfully, a majority on the court left the barbaric Scalia-Thomas-Obama (and John McCain) reasoning behind and held that capital punishment would apply only to homicides.

“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.

Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The senator had previously promised to filibuster the bill if it contained the immunity clause.

There has been a reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

[Zee]

none of that matters. Most people made up their minds before the candidates were even selected. Obama could come out and proclaim he is an alien from another planet and his followers would still blindly follow him, chanting CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.

[azamugg]

yea, they could even uncover that his pastor for twenty years,his spiritual advisor even is determined to be a flaming racist and the people wouldnt care

[Zee]

yea but we need to overlook those small details, what's more important are his well spelled out plans for change and his unmatched experience in the sena...... oh wait.

[GeauxTo]

yea but we need to overlook those small details, what's more important are his well spelled out plans for change and his unmatched experience in the sena...... oh wait.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k108/GeauxTo/ObamaCaricature.jpg

[zartan]

i actually agree 100% with this post (did i just say that?)

i've said repeatedly that, win or lose, i hope the Left stands for its true principles instead of moving to the center to try to get the undecided vote.

Obama is doing the same thing McCain has done in the last couple of years.

i still prefer Obama to McCain but it's hardly anything i can get excited about anymore.
no matter who gets elected, look for continued economic chaos, a lose-lose situation in Iraq, and heightened election-year partisan animosity. wonderful.

[Zee]

I find it fairly odd that you always hear people from both sides and independents say that they want a moderate or a centrist, someone who can bring the party's together, etc. In reality, and I think this election has proven it, very few people really want that. They may say that, but they don't mean it. Take McCain for example. He is a pretty damn moderate candidate. Because of that, you have Republicans raising hell about his nomination and saying he is a panderer to the libs and all this stuff. Then on the other side, you have Democrats who are so enamored with their candidate, that they refuse to acknowledge his super liberal voting record. So you basically have a staunch liberal and a moderate running for president. Right wing Republicans aren't happy because they don't have a candidate who represents their wants. Leftist Liberals are happy because they've got this godsend. So you would think that all those people that are always harping over moderates would look McCains way. And I'm talking about moderate Democrats. But no. They are strictly following party lines FOR THE MOST PART. The Republicans would do the same thing though. I mean I guess we'll see what happens with the election, but as of right now when I hear someone say they want a moderate candidate, I'm just going to tell them to shut their trap because they don't mean it.

[M2J]

yea, they could even uncover that his pastor for twenty years,his spiritual advisor even is determined to be a flaming racist and the people wouldnt care


Wright is an idiot, but to be fair... its not like the church is a cult. I've gone to the same church all my life and have a great relationship with my pastor and in the past have received advice from him on a number of subjects. But I don't know who he wants to be the President, don't know much about what he thinks about Bush/Obama/johnny Mac/Hillary/Bill or anybody else. Know matter the relationship they have, you don't take it out on one person because of someone else trying to take someone else's limelight and get across an ignorant agenda. EVERYONE has someone that they're closely associated with that has a totally different opinion than theirs...doesn't mean they do or need to totally disassociate themselves for an ignorant opinion of a pastor/friend/family member/ co worker.

[Tennessee Ted]

I find it fairly odd that you always hear people from both sides and independents say that they want a moderate or a centrist, someone who can bring the party's together, etc. In reality, and I think this election has proven it, very few people really want that. They may say that, but they don't mean it. Take McCain for example. He is a pretty damn moderate candidate. Because of that, you have Republicans raising hell about his nomination and saying he is a panderer to the libs and all this stuff. Then on the other side, you have Democrats who are so enamored with their candidate, that they refuse to acknowledge his super liberal voting record. So you basically have a staunch liberal and a moderate running for president. Right wing Republicans aren't happy because they don't have a candidate who represents their wants. Leftist Liberals are happy because they've got this godsend. So you would think that all those people that are always harping over moderates would look McCains way. And I'm talking about moderate Democrats. But no. They are strictly following party lines FOR THE MOST PART. The Republicans would do the same thing though. I mean I guess we'll see what happens with the election, but as of right now when I hear someone say they want a moderate candidate, I'm just going to tell them to shut their trap because they don't mean it.

I want Obama to win big time, but McCain is a much better candidate than the last 8 years. I will have no problem rallying around McCain compared to the idiot we have in office now.

[M2J]

I want Obama to win big time, but McCain is a much better candidate than the last 8 years. I will have no problem rallying around McCain compared to the idiot we have in office now.

I agree. McCain is a fine candidate, and if any republican had to be president right about now I'd want it to be him... except he carries on the same belief as most other republicans regarding continuing the war at all costs... and that is what's gonna keep him out of office.

[Sabanocchio]

I agree. McCain is a fine candidate, and if any republican had to be president right about now I'd want it to be him... except he carries on the same belief as most other republicans regarding continuing the war at all costs... and that is what's gonna keep him out of office.

IMHO what will keep him out of office is his age. The dude will be 71 years-old. Reagan was only 74 when he left office. It's not like he's in perfect health either. The dude has had melanoma in addition to prostate problems.

[M2J]

IMHO what will keep him out of office is his age. The dude will be 71 years-old. Reagan was only 74 when he left office. It's not like he's in perfect health either. The dude has had melanoma in addition to prostate problems.

Certainly doesn't help

[D^3]

I agree. McCain is a fine candidate, and if any republican had to be president right about now I'd want it to be him... except he carries on the same belief as most other republicans regarding continuing the war at all costs... and that is what's gonna keep him out of office.


I disagree to the extent that I think its the war that is going to get McCain elected. The majority of Americans don't want a guy in office with no clue of how to handle a war, or bring about the end of it... and Obama has already shown he hasn't got a clue.

[Sabanocchio]

Obama is better equipped to deal with the war in Iraq. We have no business being there right now. Iraq never attacked us and were not planning to. He won't be president during wartimes very long. We are coming home where we belong. It's time to start attacking the real enemies and the real problems that are plaguing America.

[JerryBeeds]

It's time to start attacking the real enemies and the real problems that are plaguing America.

Which are what? Global warming? SUV's? Signs that say "Men at work"? I'd say that setting up a stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world is very much in the interest of the US.

[azamugg]

Which are what? Global warming? SUV's? Signs that say "Men at work"? I'd say that setting up a stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world is very much in the interest of the US.

of course it is, if not in the interest of the entire world and is one can't see that then they are beyond help

[JessJess6713]

Which are what? Global warming? SUV's? Signs that say "Men at work"? I'd say that setting up a stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world is very much in the interest of the US.

American soldiers dying, the stock market crashing, the housing market going completely under, the dollar losing its value, our inablity to deal with Iran, mismanagement of the war in Iraq, flaring gas prices, growing unemployment numbers, no response to natural disasters that occur in our own country, and yes Global warming too.

You can try to reduce the problems of the country to Global Warming if you'd like, but the fact is this country is in a CRISIS! It's only getting worse. The largest investment firm in America and both of the largest mortage brokers have gone belly up. The stock market has dropped from the mid 13,000's to the low 11,000's. The dollar is out paced by the Euro and the Candian Dollar.
WAKE UP!

No one wants a socialist country. We've all seen that without the motivation of reward for work, a nation will fall. We've also seen that pure, unregulated capitalism is evil. In the 1940's JP Morgan worked Americans like slave. People died at work, lived in high numbers in small places, children worked, and many people starved. Acknowledging that neither works on its own, we must support both capitalistic ideas and social reform. OSHA garentee's you the right to a safe work place, is that bad?

Lack of regulation is killing this country, why? Because conservatives have been in control for far too long. I suspect that if liberals controlled the nation for too long, there would be too much regulation and a conservative would be needed to fix it.

Pre-conceived alligences shut down people minds. If your right wing, you're only supposed to say right wing things and all regulatory ideas would make us socialists. If you're left wing, you're only supposed to say left wing things and free market ideas are heartless and wrong. IT'S NOT AN A OR B THING PEOPLE! Come on over to the gray area, there's plenty of f@#$in' room.

Barack Obama has been a middle ground kind of guy from day one. He's never been afraid to cross party lines. He's been involved with church and community organising for years, so the faith based thing goes right along with his previous actions and his plan (READ IT BEFORE YOU GET CRITICAL).

Those of you who think he's a secret muslim who will destroy America...you're an idiot. The secret service and our national defense agencies missed it. The democratic party missed it in vetting their candidates. The Republican party missed it in their research for attacks. The mass of investigative reporters looking for a story couldn't find. Never fear, bloggers and redneck opinion will keep us safe. Come, really?

Please join us in the middle ground for one United States of America in 2008, to fix these looming problems and get America back on the right track. Vote Barack Obama

[Zee]

American soldiers dying, the stock market crashing, the housing market going completely under, the dollar losing its value, our inablity to deal with Iran, mismanagement of the war in Iraq, flaring gas prices, growing unemployment numbers, no response to natural disasters that occur in our own country, and yes Global warming too.

You can try to reduce the problems of the country to Global Warming if you'd like, but the fact is this country is in a CRISIS! It's only getting worse. The largest investment firm in America and both of the largest mortage brokers have gone belly up. The stock market has dropped from the mid 13,000's to the low 11,000's. The dollar is out paced by the Euro and the Candian Dollar.
WAKE UP!

No one wants a socialist country. We've all seen that without the motivation of reward for work, a nation will fall. We've also seen that pure, unregulated capitalism is evil. In the 1940's JP Morgan worked Americans like slave. People died at work, lived in high numbers in small places, children worked, and many people starved. Acknowledging that neither works on its own, we must support both capitalistic ideas and social reform. OSHA garentee's you the right to a safe work place, is that bad?

Lack of regulation is killing this country, why? Because conservatives have been in control for far too long. I suspect that if liberals controlled the nation for too long, there would be too much regulation and a conservative would be needed to fix it.

Pre-conceived alligences shut down people minds. If your right wing, you're only supposed to say right wing things and all regulatory ideas would make us socialists. If you're left wing, you're only supposed to say left wing things and free market ideas are heartless and wrong. IT'S NOT AN A OR B THING PEOPLE! Come on over to the gray area, there's plenty of f@#$in' room.

Barack Obama has been a middle ground kind of guy from day one. He's never been afraid to cross party lines. He's been involved with church and community organising for years, so the faith based thing goes right along with his previous actions and his plan (READ IT BEFORE YOU GET CRITICAL).

Those of you who think he's a secret muslim who will destroy America...you're an idiot. The secret service and our national defense agencies missed it. The democratic party missed it in vetting their candidates. The Republican party missed it in their research for attacks. The mass of investigative reporters looking for a story couldn't find. Never fear, bloggers and redneck opinion will keep us safe. Come, really?

Please join us in the middle ground for one United States of America in 2008, to fix these looming problems and get America back on the right track. Vote Barack Obama


Un-freakin-believable. That's exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post...except I think you really believe he is moderate. Unbelievable.

and Krieger is the only one who thinks Obama is a muslim

[JessJess6713]

Un-freakin-believable. That's exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post...except I think you really believe he is moderate. Unbelievable.

and Krieger is the only one who thinks Obama is a Muslim

Your right about 'moderate' being a pandering term. I can't disagree with that. No candidate is really dead center. Obama is definitely on the left. I was only saying that he's not afraid to do or say something that perceived as right wing. He acts on his beliefs and ideas, which are leftist more often than not. I didn't mean to give off the impression that I think he is aligned in the middle. I only meant that him agreeing with conservatives occasionally isn't taboo, it's refreshing.

I also said that the government needs social reform, and regulation bc conservatives have been in control too long. It would take a liberal candidate to do that. I am fully aware that he is a liberal. I don't believe that he is doggedly committed to the set of labels, only that his views fall in line with the left most frequently.

You said that "very few people really want that" (a moderate). I agree, but I think it's a problem. People squirreling their ideas against other people's is dangerous. There's a difference with a tendency to agree with a particular side, and an undying need to separate from the other side. That's a criticism for the public rather than the candidates.

Also, my previous post wasn't targeted at anyone on this board specifically. I've seen a few sigs implying that Obama is a Muslim, and run into that perception daily. The odd thing is that many of the people that hold to that idea seem to be at least intelligent enough to know better. I think that may go back to those pre-conceived allegiances I was talking about (all the neg stuff about the other guy is true).

My problem with McCain is his claim to continue disaterous policies, the fact that he clearly doesn't understand the economy, and that war lobbyist's run his campaign. He has the ability to see the need for regulation (hard not to with the way things are going), just like Barack sees the need for gun rights and faith based help. The problem with crossing lines is with the public. It often keeps people from looking at real issues, and choosing the best candidate.

[ColonelKurtz]

Good God!

Obama is a SOCIALIST, an anti-Capitalist, and evidently believes in Utopia! For someone with only 142 DAYS as a Senator, to watch one of his TV Ad's, you'd think he'd been around for YEARS instead of WEEKS! The mofo has answers for EVERYTHING TOO!!! I was totally unaware that Obama crafted so much legislation....check that, he SUPPORTED it.

READ THAT CAREFULLY!

And Jesse, grow the f*k up boy, Obama specialized in a part of the Law which deals with the maximization of grants from Federal Agencies to the so-called poor, which in fact are nothing more than dependency class Blacks who vote Democratic. What he supposedly volunteered to do was to assist Chicago Blacks in getting as many Federal Checks as they could so that they too could buy expensive properties for pennies on the dollar just like he did. While Obama was busy shilling money taken from the rest of us by the f*n IRS for those who vote for him, his old lady got a patronage job and then several "promotions" to a six figure salary.

Funny that McCain is tied with him in the latest polls....guess they are now talking to folks like me, since I was polled just the other evening by Zogby. Such a good conversation was it that I received a call today for my thoughts on various issues and received an invite to participate in upcoming interweb conferences.

[Zee]

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate. The ONLY reason he has decided to "support" gun rights and things like that is because he HAS to. He has to do that stuff to reach independents and appear to be open to conservative ideas. I have no doubt that had the supreme court voted the other way with the gun issue, he would have supported that decision. I'd also say that had there been no vote at all, once in office he would push for gun control. McCain on the other hand, to the dismay of most conservatives, really believes in those issues that he has crossed party lines for. As far as the economy, yea that's not McCains strongest issue. But Barack may know even less about it. That's why I want Romney to be McCains running mate.

[azamugg]

Your right about 'moderate' being a pandering term. I can't disagree with that. No candidate is really dead center. Obama is definitely on the left. I was only saying that he's not afraid to do or say something that perceived as right wing. He acts on his beliefs and ideas, which are leftist more often than not. I didn't mean to give off the impression that I think he is aligned in the middle. I only meant that him agreeing with conservatives occasionally isn't taboo, it's refreshing.

I also said that the government needs social reform, and regulation bc conservatives have been in control too long. It would take a liberal candidate to do that. I am fully aware that he is a liberal. I don't believe that he is doggedly committed to the set of labels, only that his views fall in line with the left most frequently.

You said that "very few people really want that" (a moderate). I agree, but I think it's a problem. People squirreling their ideas against other people's is dangerous. There's a difference with a tendency to agree with a particular side, and an undying need to separate from the other side. That's a criticism for the public rather than the candidates.

Also, my previous post wasn't targeted at anyone on this board specifically. I've seen a few sigs implying that Obama is a Muslim, and run into that perception daily. The odd thing is that many of the people that hold to that idea seem to be at least intelligent enough to know better. I think that may go back to those pre-conceived allegiances I was talking about (all the neg stuff about the other guy is true).

My problem with McCain is his claim to continue disaterous policies, the fact that he clearly doesn't understand the economy, and that war lobbyist's run his campaign. He has the ability to see the need for regulation (hard not to with the way things are going), just like Barack sees the need for gun rights and faith based help. The problem with crossing lines is with the public. It often keeps people from looking at real issues, and choosing the best candidate.



he "clearly" doesnt understand the economy..............while I have a feeling your response, tell what is so "clear" and tell me a little of his other "disastrous" policies

[JessJess6713]

he "clearly" doesnt understand the economy..............while I have a feeling your response, tell what is so "clear" and tell me a little of his other "disastrous" policies

Doesn't understand the economy:

-His own admission. He admitted it twice, to two different Journalists, and confirmed his statements with Tim Russet on National TV.

-His gas holiday would have cost as much as $9 billion in highway dollars and a net loss of around 300,000 jobs. Not one acclaimed or award winning economist thought this was a good idea, and they frequently disagree. Only Hilary Clinton and John McCain thought that this was a good idea. It would have saved the average American less than $30 and would have saved them nothing if the oil companies absorbed the profits.

-Has said that we're better off now than we were in 2000 (economically).


Disastrous Policies

-Free Trade Advocacy in markets that are not equal. I spent several weeks researching the history, potential outcomes, and immediate consequences of free trade about 7 years ago. I wrote a 10 page paper on the subject, and presented my findings to a group of 30 students (glorified school project). George bush senior put the wheels in motion, Bill Clinton made it a reality, Bush/McCain are trying to expand it. It's ugly and it will destroy our nation if it is not checked.

-Continuation of the Iraq War w/o stipulation of end. The Iraq government made double their projected profit in oil sales and increased their military budget by $0. Why should they? We work for free. No one thinks immediate, unplanned withdrawl is a good idea. To quote Barack, "We will be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in."

There are debates to come, debates that McCain cannot win. The differences will be appartent when the two men are face to face.

[JerryBeeds]

American soldiers dying, the stock market crashing, the housing market going completely under, the dollar losing its value, our inablity to deal with Iran, mismanagement of the war in Iraq, flaring gas prices, growing unemployment numbers, no response to natural disasters that occur in our own country, and yes Global warming too.

You can try to reduce the problems of the country to Global Warming if you'd like, but the fact is this country is in a CRISIS! It's only getting worse. The largest investment firm in America and both of the largest mortage brokers have gone belly up. The stock market has dropped from the mid 13,000's to the low 11,000's. The dollar is out paced by the Euro and the Candian Dollar.
WAKE UP!

No one wants a socialist country. We've all seen that without the motivation of reward for work, a nation will fall. We've also seen that pure, unregulated capitalism is evil. In the 1940's JP Morgan worked Americans like slave. People died at work, lived in high numbers in small places, children worked, and many people starved. Acknowledging that neither works on its own, we must support both capitalistic ideas and social reform. OSHA garentee's you the right to a safe work place, is that bad?

Lack of regulation is killing this country, why? Because conservatives have been in control for far too long. I suspect that if liberals controlled the nation for too long, there would be too much regulation and a conservative would be needed to fix it.

Pre-conceived alligences shut down people minds. If your right wing, you're only supposed to say right wing things and all regulatory ideas would make us socialists. If you're left wing, you're only supposed to say left wing things and free market ideas are heartless and wrong. IT'S NOT AN A OR B THING PEOPLE! Come on over to the gray area, there's plenty of f@#$in' room.

Barack Obama has been a middle ground kind of guy from day one. He's never been afraid to cross party lines. He's been involved with church and community organising for years, so the faith based thing goes right along with his previous actions and his plan (READ IT BEFORE YOU GET CRITICAL).

Those of you who think he's a secret muslim who will destroy America...you're an idiot. The secret service and our national defense agencies missed it. The democratic party missed it in vetting their candidates. The Republican party missed it in their research for attacks. The mass of investigative reporters looking for a story couldn't find. Never fear, bloggers and redneck opinion will keep us safe. Come, really?

Please join us in the middle ground for one United States of America in 2008, to fix these looming problems and get America back on the right track. Vote Barack Obama

My life is great. The part of the country you live in must suck.

[ColonelKurtz]

Doesn't understand the economy:

-His own admission. He admitted it twice, to two different Journalists, and confirmed his statements with Tim Russet on National TV.

-His gas holiday would have cost as much as $9 billion in highway dollars and a net loss of around 300,000 jobs. Not one acclaimed or award winning economist thought this was a good idea, and they frequently disagree. Only Hilary Clinton and John McCain thought that this was a good idea. It would have saved the average American less than $30 and would have saved them nothing if the oil companies absorbed the profits.

-Has said that we're better off now than we were in 2000 (economically).


Disastrous Policies

-Free Trade Advocacy in markets that are not equal. I spent several weeks researching the history, potential outcomes, and immediate consequences of free trade about 7 years ago. I wrote a 10 page paper on the subject, and presented my findings to a group of 30 students (glorified school project). George bush senior put the wheels in motion, Bill Clinton made it a reality, Bush/McCain are trying to expand it. It's ugly and it will destroy our nation if it is not checked.

-Continuation of the Iraq War w/o stipulation of end. The Iraq government made double their projected profit in oil sales and increased their military budget by $0. Why should they? We work for free. No one thinks immediate, unplanned withdrawl is a good idea. To quote Barack, "We will be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in."

There are debates to come, debates that McCain cannot win. The differences will be appartent when the two men are face to face.

The only "difference" will be that Obama is well spoken and McCain is not.

That which I bolded above represents the very height of arrogant bastardization and misrepresentation of the facts. Fuel Tax holidays benefit the end USER i.e. US, the CONSUMER!

You wish to play Devil's Advocate here so let us find out how smart and resourceful you truly are:

->Does the US Government pay taxes on the fuel IT PURCHASES?
->How large is the Federal tax bite on a gallon of fuel? State bite? Local?
->How would the Oil Companies profit from consumers paying no Federal tax on fuel?
->Who pays the costs of drilling and exploration for oil today?
->Who maintains and pays for the maintenance of our Oil infrastructure, i.e. pipelines, pumping stations, storage farms?
->Name the Industry components who would lose those 300,000 jobs you mentioned above IF the Fed Fuel Tax took a holiday.
->Do you really believe that there is a separate account for Fuel Taxes JUST FOR THE HIGHWAYS?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

Damn, life inside of the Buford Triangle is sure different than it is just 50 miles to the South! :blink:

[FanninFan]

Obama is better equipped to deal with the war in Iraq. We have no business being there right now. Iraq never attacked us and were not planning to. He won't be president during wartimes very long. We are coming home where we belong. It's time to start attacking the real enemies and the real problems that are plaguing America.

We are not fighting the "Iraqis". We are fighting Al Qaeda, and the bulk of the fighting just happens to take place in Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. Nor did Afghanistan. No country attacked the U.S, an ORGANIZATION did. This is the part most easily explained, bust most commonly misunderstood about the war. Saddam Hussein, his sons, and numerous other terrorist leaders have created a terrorism portal in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Therefore, we must fight and demoralize the terrorists over there. And according to the head military officials, it has been a stunning success. We now have to help Iraq establish an effective government and military. Keep in mind, America would still be under British rule had the French not had to compassion to aid us in our war for independence. We are the world superpower, and it is our responsibility to guard against terrorism, when it can be used against our allies (Israel). There is no good in war, but there is good in why we fight wars. We just need to trust that our military leaders are doing their jobs, and based on their reports, I'd say they most certainly are. Something that kills me is how liberals accuse these leaders of lying and distorting the truth (remember the front page article "General Betrayus"). Bullshit. Nobody ever accused George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Bernard Montgomery, or Charles DeGaulle of being liars or schemers. Democrats, it's time to put on your big girl panties and accept the facts for what they are: American success in the Middle East.

[FanninFan]

Funny as well, the most common response I hear (By landslide) is that people support Obama because of his "views on the economy". Please, somebody step up to the plate and enlighten me on his "views on the economy". He hasn't even been around long enough to view the entire senate floor.

[Gator2753]

We are not fighting the "Iraqis". We are fighting Al Qaeda, and the bulk of the fighting just happens to take place in Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. Nor did Afghanistan. No country attacked the U.S, an ORGANIZATION did. This is the part most easily explained, bust most commonly misunderstood about the war. Saddam Hussein, his sons, and numerous other terrorist leaders have created a terrorism portal in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Therefore, we must fight and demoralize the terrorists over there. And according to the head military officials, it has been a stunning success. We now have to help Iraq establish an effective government and military. Keep in mind, America would still be under British rule had the French not had to compassion to aid us in our war for independence. We are the world superpower, and it is our responsibility to guard against terrorism, when it can be used against our allies (Israel). There is no good in war, but there is good in why we fight wars. We just need to trust that our military leaders are doing their jobs, and based on their reports, I'd say they most certainly are. Something that kills me is how liberals accuse these leaders of lying and distorting the truth (remember the front page article "General Betrayus"). Bullshit. Nobody ever accused George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Bernard Montgomery, or Charles DeGaulle of being liars or schemers. Democrats, it's time to put on your big girl panties and accept the facts for what they are: American success in the Middle East.

What a great post. Dead on IMO

[OmahaBound]

We are not fighting the "Iraqis". We are fighting Al Qaeda, and the bulk of the fighting just happens to take place in Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. Nor did Afghanistan. No country attacked the U.S, an ORGANIZATION did. This is the part most easily explained, bust most commonly misunderstood about the war. Saddam Hussein, his sons, and numerous other terrorist leaders have created a terrorism portal in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Therefore, we must fight and demoralize the terrorists over there. And according to the head military officials, it has been a stunning success. We now have to help Iraq establish an effective government and military. Keep in mind, America would still be under British rule had the French not had to compassion to aid us in our war for independence. We are the world superpower, and it is our responsibility to guard against terrorism, when it can be used against our allies (Israel). There is no good in war, but there is good in why we fight wars. We just need to trust that our military leaders are doing their jobs, and based on their reports, I'd say they most certainly are. Something that kills me is how liberals accuse these leaders of lying and distorting the truth (remember the front page article "General Betrayus"). Bullshit. Nobody ever accused George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Bernard Montgomery, or Charles DeGaulle of being liars or schemers. Democrats, it's time to put on your big girl panties and accept the facts for what they are: American success in the Middle East.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you immediately weaken your argument by making it sound like we're in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia was far more an Al Qaeda hot bed than Iraq ever was before we started that battle. Sure over the past few years "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has pushed to make some noise, but they've rarely been the top insurgent group to worry about. The crux of your argument remains the same...I'm just pointing that out because most people you're debating on the topic would immediately zone out on the rest of your valid points with such a glaring error.

The problem we have now (and probably always have and always will have) is that most people seem to think their opponents are morons. In some instances they're right, but often they're not. Maybe some day reason will rule the land, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime...and I'm not even 30 yet!!

[JessJess6713]

In response (my responses in bold)...

The only "difference" will be that Obama is well spoken and McCain is not.

That which I bolded above represents the very height of arrogant bastardization and misrepresentation of the facts. Fuel Tax holidays benefit the end USER i.e. US, the CONSUMER!

You wish to play Devil's Advocate (it's not Devil's Advocate if everyone educated about the matter agrees with you: ie. economists) here so let us find out how smart and resourceful you truly are:

->Does the US Government pay taxes on the fuel IT PURCHASES? Irrelevant, we're talking about lifting our government's taxes

->How large is the Federal tax bite on a gallon of fuel? State bite? Local? Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents/gallon (Deisel is about 24.3). State and Local are irrelevant, as they are not part of the plan. Also, they vary.

->How would the Oil Companies profit from consumers paying no Federal tax on fuel? Supply and demand determine cost. Here's a generic example. If comsumers are used to paying 5 units for something and the government reduces its cost to bring it to 3 untis, the seller can increase price by 1 unit (bringing the price to 4 units). The seller will see a rise in sales, as price has gone down, while bringing in extra profit per unit. This is typical practice in the free market, though it's usually cost of production that gives people false hope about lower prices. In this case, it's government tax, but a very basic principle of economics is the supply and demand determine the cost of a product. Understand? Most economists felt that the oil companies would not absorb all of the difference, but they would claim some of it. Keep in mind that around $30 was the very most we stood to gain. Reality says we would have got less. The fact that NO ONE who has dedicated their life to the study of economics thinks that this is a good idea must mean something to you. The Trucker's Association of America didn't even endorse this plan.

->Who pays the costs of drilling and exploration for oil today? I don't know if the government supplies grants or not. I guess it depends on the legislation. What does this have to do with what we were talking about?

->Who maintains and pays for the maintenance of our Oil infrastructure, i.e. pipelines, pumping stations, storage farms? I don't know, but I bet it's the oil companies. It's pretty standard practice for companies to maintain the facilities that are created for them, or that they use. This is true in the development industry as well. Like I said, I don't really know though. That's just a guess.

->Name the Industry components who would lose those 300,000 jobs you mentioned above IF the Fed Fuel Tax took a holiday. Workers for the "Federal Highway Administration" in conjunctions with the US DOT. I don't know how many workers they employ. The loss of jobs was a case study estimate. That's all I can tell you about that.

->Do you really believe that there is a separate account for Fuel Taxes JUST FOR THE HIGHWAYS?????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? Yes, it's called the Federal Highway Trust Fund. It collects approximately 12.48-13.08 cents/gallon of the Federal Gas Tax. It was created by the Highway Revenue act of 1956.

Damn, life inside of the Buford Triangle is sure different than it is just 50 miles to the South! :blink: How so? You don't have high gas prices or a failing housing market? You didn't lost thousands in your retirement as the market fell? You didn't watch other people at your job get laid off and fear for your own? You didn't lose bonuses and pay raises do to a loss in demand for your job skills? That's what life's been like in Buford (for me at least)

I could give a crap about the Democratic party. Screw the Clintons and the Gores. They've both hurt our nation and fought against freedom. Barack Obama is a visionary. I wish you could see that, but he'll win regardless. Here comes the cheezy catch phase...You say things need to stay the same and that we can't change it, I say yes we can.)

[D^3]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you immediately weaken your argument by making it sound like we're in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia was far more an Al Qaeda hot bed than Iraq ever was before we started that battle. Sure over the past few years "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has pushed to make some noise, but they've rarely been the top insurgent group to worry about. The crux of your argument remains the same...I'm just pointing that out because most people you're debating on the topic would immediately zone out on the rest of your valid points with such a glaring error.

He made no glaring error. Right now US Forces in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda, make no mistake about it. The terrorist organizations propaganda and recruiting machines have been working overtime in countries bordering Iraq, filling the country with insurgents. The war on terror is taking place, right now, in Iraq. Iraq is the battleground, but the war is on terrorism. I am always annoyed when people wrongly assume that we are NOT fighting terrorism in Iraq. If these people paid attention to what was actually happening in Iraq, instead of what was coming out of Obama's mouth, they'd see that. Iraqi's are not fighting against the US, they are fighting ALONGSIDE of us. Sunni's and Shi'a's alike, have joined together to fight the insurgency and reclaim their country. This is not a war against Iraq. It is a war against those who would see totalitarianism rule, those who favor death and radicalism over freedom and democracy.

Obama isn't the guy to run this war, that is a ridiculous assertion. Obama wants nothing to do with war. He is as unfit to fight terrorism as he is to make decisions on foreign policy. He will never commit to doing what is necessary to protect the security of our future... because he hasn't got the spine to do it. He politicizes Iraq and talks about withdrawing... because its easier than talking about how to win it, because he has no idea how to win it. McCain wants to win. Obama wants to retreat. What do YOU want? Abandon the war, secure another terrorist attack within the next 4 years that will claim thousands more American lives.

[nooneLT]

Barack Obama is a visionary. I wish you could see that, but he'll win regardless. Here comes the cheezy catch phase...You say things need to stay the same and that we can't change it, I say yes we can.)

you may view him as a visionary, but to me he seems inexperienced. He hasn't been in US/World politics long enough to know well enough what he's doing.

[FanninFan]

Perhaps the liberals in America today are what Marx referred to as "useful idiots.".. :ph34r:

[OmahaBound]

He made no glaring error. Right now US Forces in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda, make no mistake about it. The terrorist organizations propaganda and recruiting machines have been working overtime in countries bordering Iraq, filling the country with insurgents.

Of course we're fighting them, but for the most part they haven't been our biggest concern in Iraq. We don't like them. The Iraqi people don't like them. The insurgents fighting us don't like them. There was a period when they were a serious threat, but for the most part it's been other insurgents who have been more of a concern. His original post seemed to me to suggest Al Qaeda in Iraq was our purpose for going there, and that's just not true.