May 15, 2000-- $1.67/gal
Then we elected a Republican Oil Man to the White House in November of that year.
November 13th, 2000--- $1.70 /gal
May 14, 2001--- $1.88 /gal
September 10, 2001--- $1.69 /gal
October 15, 2001--- (people have blamed price on Sept. 11) $1.50 /gal
December 31, 2001--- (last lowest price) $1.28/ gal
May 13, 2002--- $1.58/gal
May 12, 2003--- $1.68/ gal
May 10, 2004--- $2.11/gal
January 10, 2005 (last time average was under $2.00) $1.99/ gal
May 9, 2005 $2.39/ gal
August 29, 2005 $2.80/ gal
September 5, 2005 (first time average is more than $3.00) $3.29/gal
May 15, 2006--- $3.15/ gal
September 11, 2006 (five years since september 11 attack) $2.85/ gal
May 14, 2007 $3.28/ gal
October 15, 2007 (last time average was under three dollars) $2.99/ gal
May 12, 2008 $3.94/ gal
$1.67 to 3.94 is a 236% increase. And people wonder why our economy is so bad off.
Either every calculation that this administration has made was completely off the mark, or they are not so incompetent as we might think. As a congressman Dick Cheney spoke vehemently about letting the market set the price for oil even to the extent of saying that if the market could bear $4.00 a gallon, than that is what the cost should be.
After 7.5 years in charge- they got their wish. And the oil companies are pocketing all of that money.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
How is this possible?
MSNBC reports:
"The campaign is clearly running low on cash, although advisers would not say how much money — or how little — Mrs. Clinton currently has. The campaign had started April with over $10 million in unpaid debts, and Mrs. Clinton was vastly outspent by Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina and Indiana."
What makes it possible for one opponent to outspend the other without incurring debt while the other is lending to theiir individual campaign? It must be the case that one of the campaigns is raising significantly more money than the other. Fund raising, particularly among small donors is one of the benchmarks for a successful campaign.
The other, and a measurable standard by which we can assess a candidate's abilities as an administrator, would be their abilities to spend within their means (not incur debt).
"The campaign is clearly running low on cash, although advisers would not say how much money — or how little — Mrs. Clinton currently has. The campaign had started April with over $10 million in unpaid debts, and Mrs. Clinton was vastly outspent by Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina and Indiana."
What makes it possible for one opponent to outspend the other without incurring debt while the other is lending to theiir individual campaign? It must be the case that one of the campaigns is raising significantly more money than the other. Fund raising, particularly among small donors is one of the benchmarks for a successful campaign.
The other, and a measurable standard by which we can assess a candidate's abilities as an administrator, would be their abilities to spend within their means (not incur debt).
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
What can our government do immediately to help us all with Gas Prices...
SAVE LIVES and reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Finally, an idea that makes sense.
Set aside election year politics and get on with undoing this mistake the Bush administration made to increase Oil Company revenues.
Set aside election year politics and get on with undoing this mistake the Bush administration made to increase Oil Company revenues.
Monday, May 05, 2008
If You Change the Rules, I Win !!
This morning in the biggest butt-kissing session I have ever witnessed on television Joe Scarborrough interviewed Hillary Clinton. In that interview, when asked what argument she willmake going forward that she should get the Democratic Nomination.
She said, in essence that she will make the case that she can win the electoral votes. That argument will need to be dissected more carefully but suffice to say that she is claiming that she and not Barrack will win the states she won (California and New York for example). I think the claim is weak.
Her larger claim was that she has won more popular votes (this changes the rules as to how Michigan and Florida are counted) and that 'if the rules were the same as the rules followed by the Republican Party I would have already won the nomination".
That statement is only true if Florida and Michigan are counted. But forget the veracity- that standard doesn't apply when a Clinton is speaking.
Why would we want to follow the Republican rules?
These are not the rules the candidates agreed to at the beginning. It stretches my imagination and sense of right and my liberal sensibilities to continue to see everything I stand for be twisted beyond recognition in order to secured a nomination for one person who has claimed all along that she is somehow entitled to it.
First she was the inevitable candidate. Then she was the smarter candidate or the more experienced candidate- now she is the only candidate who can win (as long as we follow her rules- but will her rules change again?).
She seems to be the one who thinks she must win- and she will do anything to win. I find that dangerous. I find that divisive. I find it annoying.
She said, in essence that she will make the case that she can win the electoral votes. That argument will need to be dissected more carefully but suffice to say that she is claiming that she and not Barrack will win the states she won (California and New York for example). I think the claim is weak.
Her larger claim was that she has won more popular votes (this changes the rules as to how Michigan and Florida are counted) and that 'if the rules were the same as the rules followed by the Republican Party I would have already won the nomination".
That statement is only true if Florida and Michigan are counted. But forget the veracity- that standard doesn't apply when a Clinton is speaking.
Why would we want to follow the Republican rules?
These are not the rules the candidates agreed to at the beginning. It stretches my imagination and sense of right and my liberal sensibilities to continue to see everything I stand for be twisted beyond recognition in order to secured a nomination for one person who has claimed all along that she is somehow entitled to it.
First she was the inevitable candidate. Then she was the smarter candidate or the more experienced candidate- now she is the only candidate who can win (as long as we follow her rules- but will her rules change again?).
She seems to be the one who thinks she must win- and she will do anything to win. I find that dangerous. I find that divisive. I find it annoying.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
MN Republicans are trying a new trick-
They are blaming high gas prices on state Democrats who worked with some Republicans to raise the state gasoline tax. Unfortunately, this too might resonate with voters.
But there is a problem. The tax that Democrats- along with some Republicans- passed has not yet taken effect. Therefore, there is no way it could be in any way esponsible for hte current Gas pricesat the pump. Nor does it explain the increases at the pump by 300% since GW Bush took office.
Maybe our esteemed Mn Republican legistlators should follow the lead of McCain/Clinton and suggest a 'gas tax holiday.' Surely, the road construction projects and infrastructure improvements that ahve already begun can be put on hold for a while until we get though this nasty election business.
But there is a problem. The tax that Democrats- along with some Republicans- passed has not yet taken effect. Therefore, there is no way it could be in any way esponsible for hte current Gas pricesat the pump. Nor does it explain the increases at the pump by 300% since GW Bush took office.
Maybe our esteemed Mn Republican legistlators should follow the lead of McCain/Clinton and suggest a 'gas tax holiday.' Surely, the road construction projects and infrastructure improvements that ahve already begun can be put on hold for a while until we get though this nasty election business.
Will Hillary Clinton Say Anything to get Elected?
She knows full well that democrats in the House and in the Senate would never go along with an ill-advised plan to create a 'gas tax holiday' for the summer. She also has seen the same information as Barack Obama that such a plan is folly which would do nothing for the consumer- It might even increase prices at the pump- but would most certainly increas profits for the oil companies that continue to break profit records.
Now she is trying to paint Obama as being against the little guy and pro Oil Company.The tax holiday plan, she says, could be paid for with a 'windfall tax' on the oil companies.
Is she really naive enough to believe that cost would not be passed on to the consumer?
I do not think so. More likely, she thinks we are naive enough to think that floating this idea will get people in North Carolina and Indiana to vote for her.
Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborrough, Bill Krystal and George Will are all lining up behind this idea as if it is a good one. Why would we start thinking that they suddenly care about us.
Obama says we should continue to investigate the possibility of price gouging and continue to discuss the possiblility of a windfall tax for big oil. He also says we need to continue to wean ourselves off of foreign oil (Hillary doesn't even mention this).
If gaining the White House means sacrificing basic liberal principals- I would submit that it is not worth it.
Apparently Hillary does not agree. And, if you believe like I do, that Hillary understands full well that this election year gimmick will never fly and see her continuing to promote it -while denouncing Obama as being 'out of touch' because he doesn't- then you have no choice to conclude that she is being ccompletely disingenuous. Or, in her own words, she is saying something that contradicts what she knows to be the truth.
If you want to talk about electibility issues come this fall- "who do you trust?" is a question she cannot win.
In a recent NBC poll there were six catergories where the negatives of each candidate were measured. McCain suffered biggest with his links to Bush, then Hillary as untrustworthy, then Barrack Obama with Reverend Wright. Next was Obama again with 'bitter comments'. rounding out the top six were Hillary again and McCain for issues of likability.
What was not reported anywhere is that While Obama's issues ranked at 34 and 32 percent which were much higher than anyone expected (net negative of 66) both Hillary and McCain had higher net negatives (McCain at 74 and Hillary at 68). The length of this process is not the problem. The problem is a candidate who will sell out hers and her party's principals in ordder to get a nomination.
How does Obama respond to that? If he returns the brutal and unscrupulous attacks he weakens the party's chances int he fall and is cast as being the big guy kicking the defenseless woman.
But how many times does a guy have to be slapped around by a woman before he is allowed to swing back. Perhaps there is no answer. But that ends up making Obama look weak.
Now she is trying to paint Obama as being against the little guy and pro Oil Company.The tax holiday plan, she says, could be paid for with a 'windfall tax' on the oil companies.
Is she really naive enough to believe that cost would not be passed on to the consumer?
I do not think so. More likely, she thinks we are naive enough to think that floating this idea will get people in North Carolina and Indiana to vote for her.
Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborrough, Bill Krystal and George Will are all lining up behind this idea as if it is a good one. Why would we start thinking that they suddenly care about us.
Obama says we should continue to investigate the possibility of price gouging and continue to discuss the possiblility of a windfall tax for big oil. He also says we need to continue to wean ourselves off of foreign oil (Hillary doesn't even mention this).
If gaining the White House means sacrificing basic liberal principals- I would submit that it is not worth it.
Apparently Hillary does not agree. And, if you believe like I do, that Hillary understands full well that this election year gimmick will never fly and see her continuing to promote it -while denouncing Obama as being 'out of touch' because he doesn't- then you have no choice to conclude that she is being ccompletely disingenuous. Or, in her own words, she is saying something that contradicts what she knows to be the truth.
If you want to talk about electibility issues come this fall- "who do you trust?" is a question she cannot win.
In a recent NBC poll there were six catergories where the negatives of each candidate were measured. McCain suffered biggest with his links to Bush, then Hillary as untrustworthy, then Barrack Obama with Reverend Wright. Next was Obama again with 'bitter comments'. rounding out the top six were Hillary again and McCain for issues of likability.
What was not reported anywhere is that While Obama's issues ranked at 34 and 32 percent which were much higher than anyone expected (net negative of 66) both Hillary and McCain had higher net negatives (McCain at 74 and Hillary at 68). The length of this process is not the problem. The problem is a candidate who will sell out hers and her party's principals in ordder to get a nomination.
How does Obama respond to that? If he returns the brutal and unscrupulous attacks he weakens the party's chances int he fall and is cast as being the big guy kicking the defenseless woman.
But how many times does a guy have to be slapped around by a woman before he is allowed to swing back. Perhaps there is no answer. But that ends up making Obama look weak.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
I want my money, Gimme,gimme, gimme!!!
What a great idea it is to have a 'gas tax holiday' from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Each driver will save about $30 over the course of the summer- less for me, I drive a hybrid.But it is always politically savy to put money in the pockets of voters just prior to an election and this $.18/gallon savings is huge for Joe and Jane public.
It has the support of the president- he has even suggested it before-, the support of Hillary Clinton and the support of John McCain (who suggested it first in this current cycle).
But... wait a minute... If this is such a great idea why haven't they done it before?
Why Did Bill Clinton not do it when challenged by then candidate Bush back in 2000?
Maybe there is more to this.
You see, Shell Oil reported record profits again in the quarter just past. They are in good company with all the oil companies. There is also that nagging fact that our oil money tends to go into the hands of countries who do not agree with many of our policies on the global stage.
So while Gas may drop by 18c a gallon (I have my doubts about that since the oil industry has shown an amazing capacity for greed) big oil will continue to make there profits (potentially made greater by pocketing money that would otherwise go to the government if they raise prices, as I expect they will).
The road projects that are supposed to be funded by gas tax (you know those bridges that have had a recent problem of collapsing) will be put on hold. As a direct result (in areas where congestion is already a huge problem) there will be more time and fuel wasted sitting idle in traffic.
This idea is silly. It does not merit the attention it is getting. But some of our leaders will sell you anything if you are willing to eat it.
Ask any candidate what we can do about high oil prices and he or she does best to tell you that the first, best and only action we can take is to work with every fiber of our beings to get the oil man out of the white house.
Each driver will save about $30 over the course of the summer- less for me, I drive a hybrid.But it is always politically savy to put money in the pockets of voters just prior to an election and this $.18/gallon savings is huge for Joe and Jane public.
It has the support of the president- he has even suggested it before-, the support of Hillary Clinton and the support of John McCain (who suggested it first in this current cycle).
But... wait a minute... If this is such a great idea why haven't they done it before?
Why Did Bill Clinton not do it when challenged by then candidate Bush back in 2000?
Maybe there is more to this.
You see, Shell Oil reported record profits again in the quarter just past. They are in good company with all the oil companies. There is also that nagging fact that our oil money tends to go into the hands of countries who do not agree with many of our policies on the global stage.
So while Gas may drop by 18c a gallon (I have my doubts about that since the oil industry has shown an amazing capacity for greed) big oil will continue to make there profits (potentially made greater by pocketing money that would otherwise go to the government if they raise prices, as I expect they will).
The road projects that are supposed to be funded by gas tax (you know those bridges that have had a recent problem of collapsing) will be put on hold. As a direct result (in areas where congestion is already a huge problem) there will be more time and fuel wasted sitting idle in traffic.
This idea is silly. It does not merit the attention it is getting. But some of our leaders will sell you anything if you are willing to eat it.
Ask any candidate what we can do about high oil prices and he or she does best to tell you that the first, best and only action we can take is to work with every fiber of our beings to get the oil man out of the white house.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
if you say it long enough and loud enough it becomes true...
Really, it does.
For instance, we now believe that Hillary staged a stunning comeback in New Hampshire- even though she consistently polled in the lead in that state at all points prior to the election and won by a slim margin. We now believe that Clinton pulled off a coup in Ohio- but again, she was projected to win there as well.
In Pennsylvania, the media (who we have been trained into thinking hate Clinton) have been telling us that Clinton achieved the unachievable. Again, anyone who watched the tracking polls would know that she was expected to win by 6-12 points.
We are also told, consistently, that Clinton 'won big' in Texas. Look again. Clinton won a norrow victory in the parts of the state that held a primary but Obama won in the areas that conduct caucuses. The net gain in Texas delegate count went to Obama- not Clinton.
War is Peace! etc.
Clinton says she is doing this for the good of the party. But now, her most ardent supporters are saying that if she does not get the nomination- they will stay home or vote for John McCain.
Somehow Hillary Clinton has created a paradigm where she can stand during a debate and say, "What I said at that time is inconsistent with what I had written and with what I knew to be the truth." and have noone call her out on the fact that she is admitting to lying (saying something that you know to be inconsistent with the truth).
There was this stunning thing that happened in Pennsylvania advertising that would be missed by anyone who is not a political junkie. Even some of the political junkies would likely miss it. The media certainly did.
Hillary Clinton ran a completely negative ad about Barrack Obama based on flase information about his voting record. Obama's campaign responded immediately with an add which refutes the disinformation ad with the facts- the kind of split screen "Hillary Clinton says.../ but..." ad we hav all seen- the very kind that most of us felt Kerry should have done against Bush four years ago.
The Clintons responded by saying that Obama's ad was 'the most negative ad any candidate has ever run.' That spin was then carried by the Clinton followers who love to argue that 'both sides are being negative.'
More and more, I have come to believe that the Clintons want to win at all costs. They say things like Hillary and McCain are ready from day 1 but that Obama is not and then say that saying such a thing is not negative. They say make comparisons to Jesse Jackson and say they are not being racist. They complain about the unfair obstacles that exist for women in campaigning (including a memorable recent comment from Hillary about how it takes longer for her to put her face on- which btw, if Obama wanted to go negative he could have had a lot of fun with on a variety of levels) and criticize the media and the debate process when things don't go her way. In the next breath they tell Obama that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen when he raised concerns about the last debate.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton can do whatever she wants and complain about mistreatment for any variety of reasons. She can punch below the belt and she can create negativity about her oponent even to the extent of destroying his chances in the general election but as soon as Obama or a surrogate tries to point out what she is doing they are being negative and unfair.
So here is the problem. Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support among women. As such they are predisposed to dislike for anyone who would dare to run against her. The media is calling for a knock-out punch. But how can Obama possibly do that? He can't.
To do so would potentially alienate the women he needs for the general election.
People ask me what I like about Obama. Honestly, part of what attracted me to him first is that his last name is not Clinton (My first pick would have been Richardson). But what impresses me today is that he is not Hillary Clinton. He does not allow himself to be defined by how strong he is against his enemies. In fact the language of us verses them is almost completely missing from his lexicon.
In the end, I believe him to be the 'uniter' that Bush claimed to be.
Hillary does not even claim to be a uniter. In fact, she revels in the idea that she is not a uniter- she will fight and fight and fight and fight. That's fine. But what if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is supposed to be on the same side. At that point, being a fighter who doesn't give up ends up creating distinctions that do not exist and creating divisions that likely cannot be repaired.
So what does the end game look like?
The numbers still work in Obama's favor. But the Clintonistas are working overtime to change the rules- its about popular vote- its about Florida and Michigan- its about picking a name out of a hat- as long as you pick me. Any argument given by the other side will not be perceived as valid.
In the end there are rules. And rules matter. The rules will work in the parties favor if we stick to them. It may, in fact, be the rules that will, in the end, hold the party together.
For instance, we now believe that Hillary staged a stunning comeback in New Hampshire- even though she consistently polled in the lead in that state at all points prior to the election and won by a slim margin. We now believe that Clinton pulled off a coup in Ohio- but again, she was projected to win there as well.
In Pennsylvania, the media (who we have been trained into thinking hate Clinton) have been telling us that Clinton achieved the unachievable. Again, anyone who watched the tracking polls would know that she was expected to win by 6-12 points.
We are also told, consistently, that Clinton 'won big' in Texas. Look again. Clinton won a norrow victory in the parts of the state that held a primary but Obama won in the areas that conduct caucuses. The net gain in Texas delegate count went to Obama- not Clinton.
War is Peace! etc.
Clinton says she is doing this for the good of the party. But now, her most ardent supporters are saying that if she does not get the nomination- they will stay home or vote for John McCain.
Somehow Hillary Clinton has created a paradigm where she can stand during a debate and say, "What I said at that time is inconsistent with what I had written and with what I knew to be the truth." and have noone call her out on the fact that she is admitting to lying (saying something that you know to be inconsistent with the truth).
There was this stunning thing that happened in Pennsylvania advertising that would be missed by anyone who is not a political junkie. Even some of the political junkies would likely miss it. The media certainly did.
Hillary Clinton ran a completely negative ad about Barrack Obama based on flase information about his voting record. Obama's campaign responded immediately with an add which refutes the disinformation ad with the facts- the kind of split screen "Hillary Clinton says.../ but..." ad we hav all seen- the very kind that most of us felt Kerry should have done against Bush four years ago.
The Clintons responded by saying that Obama's ad was 'the most negative ad any candidate has ever run.' That spin was then carried by the Clinton followers who love to argue that 'both sides are being negative.'
More and more, I have come to believe that the Clintons want to win at all costs. They say things like Hillary and McCain are ready from day 1 but that Obama is not and then say that saying such a thing is not negative. They say make comparisons to Jesse Jackson and say they are not being racist. They complain about the unfair obstacles that exist for women in campaigning (including a memorable recent comment from Hillary about how it takes longer for her to put her face on- which btw, if Obama wanted to go negative he could have had a lot of fun with on a variety of levels) and criticize the media and the debate process when things don't go her way. In the next breath they tell Obama that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen when he raised concerns about the last debate.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton can do whatever she wants and complain about mistreatment for any variety of reasons. She can punch below the belt and she can create negativity about her oponent even to the extent of destroying his chances in the general election but as soon as Obama or a surrogate tries to point out what she is doing they are being negative and unfair.
So here is the problem. Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support among women. As such they are predisposed to dislike for anyone who would dare to run against her. The media is calling for a knock-out punch. But how can Obama possibly do that? He can't.
To do so would potentially alienate the women he needs for the general election.
People ask me what I like about Obama. Honestly, part of what attracted me to him first is that his last name is not Clinton (My first pick would have been Richardson). But what impresses me today is that he is not Hillary Clinton. He does not allow himself to be defined by how strong he is against his enemies. In fact the language of us verses them is almost completely missing from his lexicon.
In the end, I believe him to be the 'uniter' that Bush claimed to be.
Hillary does not even claim to be a uniter. In fact, she revels in the idea that she is not a uniter- she will fight and fight and fight and fight. That's fine. But what if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is supposed to be on the same side. At that point, being a fighter who doesn't give up ends up creating distinctions that do not exist and creating divisions that likely cannot be repaired.
So what does the end game look like?
The numbers still work in Obama's favor. But the Clintonistas are working overtime to change the rules- its about popular vote- its about Florida and Michigan- its about picking a name out of a hat- as long as you pick me. Any argument given by the other side will not be perceived as valid.
In the end there are rules. And rules matter. The rules will work in the parties favor if we stick to them. It may, in fact, be the rules that will, in the end, hold the party together.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Who Said...?
"The reason (these) tactics work so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death."
That was candidate Bill Clinton in September 1991 as quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
The Huffington Post elaborates in this article.
Yeah, and some people say these two are good. But let's take a closer look at the attitudes of Hillary Clinton toward the 'lunch bucket' people.
As reported in another article in the Huffington Post:
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats.
Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades.
"I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."
The article continues:
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.
But these comments weren't brought up in the insufferable ABC debate.
That was candidate Bill Clinton in September 1991 as quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
The Huffington Post elaborates in this article.
Yeah, and some people say these two are good. But let's take a closer look at the attitudes of Hillary Clinton toward the 'lunch bucket' people.
As reported in another article in the Huffington Post:
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats.
Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades.
"I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."
The article continues:
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.
But these comments weren't brought up in the insufferable ABC debate.
So what do you say if you are the President of the United States...
upon greeting a Pope at the White House for only the second time in History and hearing the Pope's words to the nation: (after applauding you approach the Pope grasp his hands and say)
"Duh, that was an awesome speech!" Heck while you're at it throw in a 'Dude' or two.
Unless you are not an idiot, then you might say something different.
"Duh, that was an awesome speech!" Heck while you're at it throw in a 'Dude' or two.
Unless you are not an idiot, then you might say something different.
Monday, April 14, 2008
I am bitter--
Just read the title of this Blog.
I am bitter, and I am frustrated that my government does not act in a way that represents me in matters of war and peace and economic justice and matters of moral credibility.
I do not cling to guns or isolationist attitudes- but I know people who do. And some of those who do would not say that they are bitter. In fact, if they are bitter it is unlikely to be about the issues I mentioned above.
Anyone who does not recognize, within themselves, at least a small sense of frustration or anger or'bitterness' about the way our government has been behaving, or about the way our government has been ignoring the concerns of its own people (Remember Dick Cheney's reaction to the polls against the Iraq war "So?") is simply being either dishonest or out-of touch.
So I am bitter about the way our country is being run. I also am feeling a sense of disconnectedness about that - after all, what can we really do?
And so I turn to my own sphere of influence- that area where I can make a difference and empower others to do the same. Some may go so far as to say I am clinging to religion.
Religious organizations, when they function at their best, can and do perform many functions that government cannot and probably should not do. They also perform functions in our society that government chooses not to do.
Obama may have been lazy in his choice of words but when I heard and read his comments they did ring true.
I am bitter, and I am frustrated that my government does not act in a way that represents me in matters of war and peace and economic justice and matters of moral credibility.
I do not cling to guns or isolationist attitudes- but I know people who do. And some of those who do would not say that they are bitter. In fact, if they are bitter it is unlikely to be about the issues I mentioned above.
Anyone who does not recognize, within themselves, at least a small sense of frustration or anger or'bitterness' about the way our government has been behaving, or about the way our government has been ignoring the concerns of its own people (Remember Dick Cheney's reaction to the polls against the Iraq war "So?") is simply being either dishonest or out-of touch.
So I am bitter about the way our country is being run. I also am feeling a sense of disconnectedness about that - after all, what can we really do?
And so I turn to my own sphere of influence- that area where I can make a difference and empower others to do the same. Some may go so far as to say I am clinging to religion.
Religious organizations, when they function at their best, can and do perform many functions that government cannot and probably should not do. They also perform functions in our society that government chooses not to do.
Obama may have been lazy in his choice of words but when I heard and read his comments they did ring true.
A New Approach to Abortion?
This Article from MSNBC highlights how two anti-abortion Democrats are supporting Barrack Obama and suggests that there is a change in the air regarding this issue. The article suggests that both Democratic candidates for president are looking to difuse the hostility on the issue and focus more on finding the common ground that will successfully reduce the number of abortions.Asked last night at a nationally televised forum on religious and moral values if there can be "common ground" on abortion, Obama said that "people of good will can exist on both sides." With Casey watching from the audience at Messiah College outside Harrisburg, Pa., he added that while there will always be irreconcilable differences between opponents and supporters of abortion rights, "we can take some of the edge off the debate." (Robert Casey is a pro-life Democrat from Pennsylvania).
But Clinton has also sought to break from party policy, as she, too, made clear last night. She said that "I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number" of abortions, so whoever wins the nomination, Democrats are likely to try to defuse the issue in the general election. Clinton co-wrote, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a significant abortion-prevention bill in January 2005; Obama signed on early as a co-sponsor.
So, it would appear that both of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated a willingness to enter into a new dialogue about the issue.
Unfortunately, the other side is less likely to engage in such conversation. Already several conservative talking points are being circulated among pro-life groups that Obama is ' the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president.'
If that sounds familiar it should. They have used that line since Michael Dukakis ran in 1988 and probably before.
But Clinton has also sought to break from party policy, as she, too, made clear last night. She said that "I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number" of abortions, so whoever wins the nomination, Democrats are likely to try to defuse the issue in the general election. Clinton co-wrote, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a significant abortion-prevention bill in January 2005; Obama signed on early as a co-sponsor.
So, it would appear that both of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated a willingness to enter into a new dialogue about the issue.
Unfortunately, the other side is less likely to engage in such conversation. Already several conservative talking points are being circulated among pro-life groups that Obama is ' the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president.'
If that sounds familiar it should. They have used that line since Michael Dukakis ran in 1988 and probably before.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Before it gets more blown out of proportion
in the news--- Obama said this in California at a fundraiser- to a group of people he wanted to receive money from.
The context apparently is that he is explaining the challenges faced by the campaign. He is not grousing about people -as has been suggested by one of his challengers. Nor is he apparently 'out-of touch' with the working class as was suggested by the other. My take on it is that he has pretty accurately described a very real situation.
He says, in part:
"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Now these are in some communities, you know, I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical."
I think dissecting this in a way that tries to make Obama out to be aloof or elitist is utter nonsense.
The context apparently is that he is explaining the challenges faced by the campaign. He is not grousing about people -as has been suggested by one of his challengers. Nor is he apparently 'out-of touch' with the working class as was suggested by the other. My take on it is that he has pretty accurately described a very real situation.
He says, in part:
"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Now these are in some communities, you know, I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical."
I think dissecting this in a way that tries to make Obama out to be aloof or elitist is utter nonsense.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Hillary Clinton has Problems
The attached article shows how Hillary is losing her lead in Pennsylvania.
Yesterday, the news in the morning opened with Hillary Clinton explaining to a crow that she has a disadvantage to her male counterparts in the campaign because she has to spend more time 'putting on her face.'
I didn't post about this yesterday because there were so many ways to go and I couldn't decide.
On the one hand there is the all to easy crack about having two to choose from. On the other there is the parody you can see being prepared by SNL about having to put the 3 AM phone call on hold while she puts on her face.
But the most obvious one is the continued playing of the victim card. How is it possible that this person can keep reminding us of how hard it is for a woman to run and at the same time, sometimes in the same breath, scream that she is not being treated fairly? It is getting annoying.
Yesterday, the news in the morning opened with Hillary Clinton explaining to a crow that she has a disadvantage to her male counterparts in the campaign because she has to spend more time 'putting on her face.'
I didn't post about this yesterday because there were so many ways to go and I couldn't decide.
On the one hand there is the all to easy crack about having two to choose from. On the other there is the parody you can see being prepared by SNL about having to put the 3 AM phone call on hold while she puts on her face.
But the most obvious one is the continued playing of the victim card. How is it possible that this person can keep reminding us of how hard it is for a woman to run and at the same time, sometimes in the same breath, scream that she is not being treated fairly? It is getting annoying.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
