And finally, the irreplaceable VDH sums it all up for us. Give poor W a break, and his due:
- he really did try to fix social security (he was filibustered in the Senate)
- he really did try to pass a comprehensive energy bill for 7 years now, that would have provided for refining, exploration, and development (filibuster again)
- he really did try to prevent a depression in the post 9/11 days, lack of anti-terrorism insurance brought our economy to a standstill. On this, he succeeded
- he really did try to cut taxes on all working Americans. On this he succeeded
- he really did try to eradicate Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth. None before him even tried
- he really did try to save New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. He was turned down in his offer to invoke the insurrection act, which was the only way to allow federal oversight, and was turned down by the democrat governor of Louisiana, and by New Orleans mayor, who were more interested in reaping the political bonanza then in saving their city.
- he really did try to do something about the sad history of the middle east, and about Saddam Hussein, about which none had done anything for decades. I still say that he is succeeding in this.
Yes, you can count me among the %30, and among the last %1 if it came to that. He will go down in history as a great, not good, president...T
Here is how our baby-boom generation solves problems:
-- Recently, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia to ask the ruling House of Saud to pump more oil. That request had about as much chance of success as the Democratic-led congressional effort to "sue" the Saudis in American courts for their selfish "price-gouging."
The current debate about energy in the United States has devolved into doing the same old thing -- consume, don't produce and complain -- while somehow expecting different results. Congress talks endlessly about the bright future of wind, solar and new fuels, while it stops us from getting through the messy present by utilizing abundant coal, shale and tar sands; nuclear power; and oil still untapped in Alaska and off our coasts.
-- For the past five years, we fretted over a "housing boom" that had priced an entire generation out of the market. In response, government and lending agencies got "creative" by relaxing standards to allow shaky "first-time" buyers into the red-hot market of high-priced homes. Home-improvement TV shows proliferated on how to "flip" houses and buy "no-down-payment" properties.
When the bubble inevitably burst, cries of outrage followed about how "they" (never "we") caused a "depression" in housing. Our leaders shrieked about greedy lenders and incompetent regulators who foreclosed on us -- never that the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem, or that housing prices are finally becoming affordable again for new couples.
-- Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein -- overwhelming support for the administration's war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.
But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by "their stupid occupation."
-- The current Social Security system is unsustainable. But the baby boomers who gave us Botox aren't about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits.
There is a pattern in all these dilemmas. And it is not conservative-versus-liberal politics, but generational chaos. Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence -- and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.
History has seen something like them before in the "blame them" years of Demosthenes' Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the "after me, the deluge" generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.
What are the baby boomers' collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.
There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.
When things don't go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf?
And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion?
The sense of self-importance is never far away. We "earned" our generous unsustainable Social Security benefits, so why should we have to suffer by cutting them?
Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the "me" generation -- sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.
Perhaps the greatest trademark of the 1960s cohort was self-congratulation. Baby boomers alone claimed to have brought about changes in civil rights, women's liberation and environmental awareness -- as if these were not prior concerns of earlier generations.
We apparently created all of our wealth rather than having inherited our roads, schools and bountiful infrastructure from someone else. And in our self-absorption, no one accepted that our notorious appetites created more problems than our supposed "caring" solved.
Our present problems were not really caused by an unpopular president, a spendthrift Congress, the neocon bogeymen, the greedy Saudis, shifty bankers or corporate oilmen in black hats and handlebar moustaches -- much less the anonymous "they."
The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Click here - Full article
Thursday, May 29, 2008
And finally, the irreplaceable VDH sums it all up for us. Give poor W a break, and his due:
Ok, don't take my word for it...here is the Politico's take, excerpted ...T
It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004...
...the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004. Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes...
...“A win by 40 or 50 electoral votes would be an astonishing upset, just a watershed event with all the issues that were stacked against him from the very beginning,” said David Woodard, a Republican pollster and Clemson University political science professor. “But it could happen. I know this seems like wishful thinking by Republicans. I’m thinking that Republicans could win by 40 electoral votes. But I dare not say it,” he added. “Certainly what is possible could come to pass.”
A top strategist with the Republican National Committee, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, explained that by his own examination, “we’re actually sitting pretty well in most states.”
“There are a lot of scenarios that look good for McCain, and I almost would go so far to say that there are a lot more scenarios [than for Obama],” the strategist added. “I don’t think anybody over here wants to let themselves get too excited about it. It is an eternity between now and November. But McCain looks a lot stronger than our prospects as a party.”
It is virtually impossible to find an established GOP strategist who believes McCain will win in a landslide. But in light of the circumstances, more than a few Republicans are pleasantly surprised to find that McCain is at all situated to defeat Obama.
“The broader environment clearly favors the Democrat,” said Whit Ayers, another veteran GOP pollster. But Ayers argued that “a state-by-state analysis actually makes McCain a narrow favorite to win the Electoral College majority.”
“That would certainly run against the grain of history, if he pulled that off,” Ayers added. “But it’s also clearly plausible and a manageable outcome partly because of John McCain’s strength among independents and partly because of Obama’s weakness in culture, ideology and association.”
...Among the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party’s prospects in November would be nil.
“No disrespect to the other candidates,” said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, “but if anyone else had been nominated we’d be toast.”
...“McCain is in a remarkably strong position for how poor the political environment is right now,” said Brian Nienaber, a GOP pollster. “McCain could win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada with a high Hispanic population. It really does scramble the map of where Obama does find those electoral votes.”
Naturally, Democrats do not concede the point. But conversations with several Democratic strategists reveal that many acknowledge that the Republican scenarios are at least reasonable, (with) McCain’s ability to compete in some big industrial states offers a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal election cycle.
“We have to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania. McCain wins one of those states, we are in trouble. They have to hold Florida and Ohio or they are trouble,” Democratic pollster Paul Maslin said. “The truth about this race [is], this is the year that we shouldn’t lose, and we could lose.”
The GOP scenarios do not rely on some game-changing event but rather the possibility of Obama failing to overcome his own and his party’s weaknesses. Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton.
It is that potential Obama floor that increasingly occupies the minds of Republicans studying the map. Even the potentially dramatic rise in turnout of African-Americans may only gain Obama 1 percentage point in many swing states, according to Maslin. Yet Obama’s weaknesses may end up neutralizing some of those relatively modest gains.
Since 1968, Democrats have had a deficit with whites, particularly men. Some Republicans believe that Obama may exacerbate those Democratic challenges, especially in key rural regions like Appalachia, struggle to win back Hispanics or some women, and dash Democratic prospects during their most favorable landscape in at least three decades.
“There is a one in four shot that McCain can win an electoral majority in excess of 50 electoral votes, which by most recent standards would be a blowout,” Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said. “Considering where the Republican brand is right now, that’s pretty phenomenal.”
Full Article - New window
Excellent analysis from the American Thinker today. This reflects nicely my own thinking, which has not changed in months now.
Of the Senate seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans, 12 are held by Democrats. 5 Republicans are retiring and two Republican seats are held by appointees. Given these numbers, it would be impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate, even in a good year. I expect Democrats to make gains in the Senate. Remember, taking advantage of open seats and appointees was how the Republicans took the Senate in 1994.
Democrats will probably also gain in the House because Democrats have been much better at recruiting strong local candidates. That's why the Democrats won the three special elections. They recruited strong, moderate, candidates, who could win the districts.
The conventional wisdom is wrong about the Presidential race. McCain wins and wins big. Here's why:
1. November is a long way away, and Republicans have nowhere to go but up in the polls. Bush is a lame duck and the Republicans are out of power in Congress. They will have a hard time making any more mistakes.
2. McCain leads his party by 15-20 points. He is easily the most popular man in the GOP. If the Republicans can merely crawl out of the electoral basement, McCain wins easily.
3. The electoral college map favors McCain. (Hillary's case against Obama) Obama can run up the score in cities and college towns, but that won't win him the states he needs to win.4.
McCain has the support of 15-20% of Democrats. Obama has the support of 5% of Republicans. In contrast, Bush and Kerry each had the support of about 10% of members of the opposite party.
5. Too many Democrats, especially those associated with the Obama campaign, are betting against US Military success. George B. McClellan had Lincoln beat in the summer of 1864 on a platform of ending the war. A few Union victories later, Lincoln won in a landslide. 6. Democrats are not good at winning Presidential elections. Since the Civil War, only four Democrats have won a majority of the popular vote: Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college in 1876; FDR, who did it four times; LBJ in 1964; and Carter, who managed slightly over 50% against Ford in 1976. All other Democratic Presidents were elected on pluralities.
I predict a substantial victory for McCain...T
I have been following politics for a while. Since 1952. I have never seen the conventional wisdom about an election more baseless.
Why Obama? Charisma, ideas, hope? None of these or any other reasons that have been bandied about. It's Obama because he is not Hillary.
The Clintons embarrassed the Democratic Party. Many, many Democrats were ashamed of their President. They do not want to see Billary in the White House ever again, even as visitors. Note that Obama won in the caucus states where the politically active determine the outcome.
A Democratic year? How do you figure? Because the New York Times says so? Look at 2006! Yes, let's look at it. In the preceding 6 midterm elections where the incumbent President's party lost seats the average loss in the Senate was 6.1, in the House 29.33. In 2006 the Republicans lost 7 in the Senate and 30 in the House. Pretty ho-hum.
Let's look at the Democratic Presidents.
JFK and Nixon tied in the popular vote, even though Nixon was extremely unlikeable.
LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964. Kennedy had been assassinated, we were in the middle of a war and Goldwater was a radical.
Carter beat Ford in 1976. Nixon had resigned because of Watergate and Ford was an appointed Vice President.
Clinton beat GHWB in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. Ross Perot got 19% which, arguably, was 60-70% Republicans.
It seems that Democrats only win in extreme circumstances.
In our history we have seen stretches where one party controlled Congress that average about 30 years with occasional one-term reversals. I'll go with history every time.
From where I'm sitting it doesn't look at all like a Democratic year.
Full article - New window
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
There it is, in black and white (no pun intended). The guy IS Jimmy Carter; even the "Malaise" is there. If that doesn't send shivers up the spine of every voter over 40, then nothing will...T
It was a cold and rainy October night when my mother and I stood outside a Skokie, Illinois Synagogue to hear and hopefully meet Georgia Governor James Earl "Jimmy" Carter. My parents and most Americans were still sickened over Watergate, President Gerald Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard Nixon and the disaster of the Vietnam War. They hungered for "change" and "new hope". Many Americans believed they found what they desperately yearned for in a peanut farmer turned politician from Georgia.
Four years later Jimmy Carter's name couldn't be uttered by my father without being proceeded by four-letter expletives. My mother cried herself to sleep believing that Carter's school-busing program was going to take me from my elementary school down the block to a school and hour away on the southside of Chicago. Supporters of Israel began to distrust him as he began showing signs of an anti-Israel bias. The economy was devastating families with double-digit inflation and the Iran hostage crisis made Americans ashamed of their President.
Today there is an eerie similarity to the election that led up to the disastrous Carter administration. All the Presidential candidates are speaking the rhetoric of "change" and "trust" in government. However, assumed Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has based his entire bid for the White House with Carter-style ideas and campaign policy advisers stemming directly from the administration and school of thought of the Carter Presidency.
Obama has already begun running against GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (AZ). He is playing on the fears of Democrats, Independents and some Republicans that the Arizona Senator will be a third term for George W. Bush. While McCain has shown significant policy and philosophical differences then our current President, Barack Obama is a Democrat from the same far-left mold of Carter. I contend that Obama if elected, will be the second term of Jimmy Carter.
The first signs of an Obama/Carter similarity began early on the primary race when the Illinois Senator began hiring former Carter aides and cabinet members to be policy advisers. The biggest name that surfaced was former national security advisor under Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brezinski.
Why Obama would want to be in the same room with Brezinski is mind-boggling. He was the first prominent politician to deny that Islamic extremism was or would become a danger to the world. In a February 2, 1979 memo to President Carter he claimed Islamic fundamentalism is not an imminent threat and will not gain prominence in the Middle East.
Like his former boss, Brezinski has the same "blame the Jews" mentality. The former national security advisor has publicly endorsed the views published in the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which has provided endless ammunition for anti-Israel activists, Zionist conspiracy buffs and Holocaust deniers.
Continuing the Carter tradition of employing "blame Israel" advocates, Obama hired former special assistant to President Clinton, Robert Malley. Recently the British newspaper, The Times interviewed Malley in which he admitted that he had visited Syria and held discussions with the terrorist organization Hamas. Last month President Carter also met with the terrorist organization in Egypt and Syria.
As news began to surface about Malley and his meetings with Hamas, he resigned his position with the Obama campaign. Unfortunately the public will never know to what extent Sen. Obama was influenced by Malley. Obama has called for direct talks with Iran, a country that continously calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Malley and Carter are also vocal advocates for direct talks with Iran, without any stipulations such as denouncing terrorism or their desire to murder millions of Jews.
One of the criticisms facing Obama is his lack of foreign policy experience. Carter was under the same scrutiny during his 1976 Presidential campaign. He relied on Brezinski, Anthony Lake and his eventual Secreatary of State Cyrus Vance. Today Obama also utlizes Brezinski and Lake as well as similar minded foreign policy advisors such as Susan Rice and until recently Malley and Samantha Power, who resigned from the campaign for referring to Hillary Clinton as a Monster. The fact that she was hired by the campaign in the first place shows a dangerous lack of judgement. A judgement that is comparable to President Carter.
Obama's trust of the above mentioned policy advisors has been well documented by the "alternative/new media," so most likely I'm not telling you something you haven't heard before. However it can never be stressed enough that Carter's foreign policy was a disaster for the United States, so it must be asked until properly answered, "why would Obama want advisors who have already demonstrated incompetence under a previous administration?" Maybe Obama doesn't believe Carter's policies were detremental to the America. Does he want to once again go in that direction? America must know before election day.
If Obama's choice of advisers isn't an indication that his Presidency would be Jimmy Carter's second term, than his speech this past Saturday in Roseburg, Oregon undoubtedly was.
In July of 1979 President Carter gave a nationally televised address in which he told America that he believed the nation was facing a "crisis of confidence." His speech would later be known as his "malaise" speech.
During his Oval office conversation with America, Carter did something no President before him has done. He gave a speech that was critical of the attitude and way of life of the American people. Many accurately perceived his speech to be about a defeated America. Carter dwelled on a what he believed was a lack of faith and confidence that had overwhelmed the American people, placing more blame on them instead of the failures of his Presidency as well as the Democrat controlled House and Senate.
"I know, of course, being president, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law -- and I have to admit, with just mixed success," Carter said. "But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America."
Carter would go on to literally chide Americans for their lack of confidence in the country. After campaigning to restore America from the toll taken after Vietnam, Watergate and the energy crisis, he had failed and the blame was going to be placed on the people not his lack of leadership.
Obama's speech this past Saturday had a frighteningly similar "blame the people" tone as Carter's speech. While Obama still emphasizes the failures of Washington he also blames Americans for how they live their lives.
"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine," Obama said.
Obama later added fear tactics in making his case that Americans have to change their lifestyle. "We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners."
Brian Fitzpatrick senior editor at Culture and Media Institute also believes that Obama's Oregon address is comparable to Carter's "Malaise" speech. He recently wrote about the media covering up his comments blaming Americans and their way of life. Carter had also become a media darling during his 1976 Presidential campaign. The media pass Obama received in Oregon is a blatant attempt to not add credence to the argument that Obama is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter.
When you take an honest look at the advisors Obama has selected, his desire to meet with leaders who promote genocide and rule their nations with an iron-fist, the comparison to Carter is undeniable. When you add the fact that both men are media favorites, place much blame on the way Americans live and support increased government regulation and big government programs instead of the free-market ideas to solve America's ills, the fear that people have that an Obama Presidency would by Carter's second term, is not just a concern, but a harsh reality.
Full article - New window
Monday, May 26, 2008
A little thing I whipped up for Memorial Day. Click the link to see it on Epicurious.com. Enjoy...T
Ingredients: Ground Sirloin; Fresh Garlic; Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning; Tabasco Chipotle Pepper Sauce; Heinz 57 Sauce; Worcestershire sauce; Hellman's Mayonnaise; 1 Large Onion (not a Red Onion); 2 eggs; Mesquite wood chips soaked in water; high quality hamburger buns w/meal or sesame etc; Smoked Gouda Cheese slices
1- Prepare 12-16 ounces marinade using equal 1/3 parts Heinz 57 sauce, Worcestershire sauce, and Tabasco Chipotle pepper sauce. Chop several cloves of Garlic and roast or sauté them lightly, until they soften a bit, and set aside
2- Add a generous amount of "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" to the marinade
3- Prepare appropriate amount (4 pounds or so) of Ground Sirloin, loosely, in a bowl
4- Season the meat in the bowl using "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" and add chopped and slightly roasted fresh garlic
5- Add the marinade to the ground sirloin, mix, and let stand in a covered bowl for 2 1/2 hours
6- Prepare grill using Mesquite wood chips soaked in water for 20 minutes, on top of grill ready coals
7- Prepare a small bowl of Chipotle mayo, using Hellman's mayonnaise and Tabasco Chipotle pepper sauce
8- Grill the burgers quickly, adding more "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" on the grill
9- Add "Kings Choice" Smoked Gouda cheese slices for the last 2 minutes of grilling time (available at Meijer’s)
10- Butter the buns on both halves, and lightly brown them in the broiler
11- Add the chipotle mayo sauce to both halves of the buns
12- Add a sliced fresh onion wheel to each burger
13- Crack a Heineken
Optional - If you find the sirloin doesn't hold together on the grill then add an egg or two to the mix prior to cooking, but after marinating
Open in new window
Posted by Navitor69 at 8:32 PM
Saturday, May 10, 2008
I concur. This is why I love VDH - he always takes the long view. I would, though, say this: Bush has been a great president, buffeted as he has been by forces beyond his control. Remember also, what Milton Friedman used to say about energy prices - "What goes up, must come down: The higher they rise, the faster and steeper they will fall"...T
We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.
It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.
It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.
That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.
Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.
When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.
John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.
Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.
He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"
Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.
There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.
Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.
Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.
Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.
Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.
The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.
The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.
And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.
George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.
Full article - New Window
Saturday, May 03, 2008
This from Michael Barone today. Ladies and gentleman, Obama is a dead man walking. Hitlery Robem can't catch him. This is looking like McGovern/Dukakis redux. How sweet it is!...T
Will Barack Obama's longtime connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright continue to hurt him? Evidence that it will comes from pollster Scott Rasmussen, who finds that only 30 percent of likely voters say Obama denounced Wright because he was outraged, while 58 percent believe he denounced him for political convenience. Only 33 percent believe Obama was surprised by Wright's statements at the National Press Club, while 52 percent say he was not surprised. Some 26 percent say it's very likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States" and 56 percent say it's somewhat likely he does. Only 7 percent of voters and 12 percent of black voters say they share those views. Ouch! These results are more adverse than I would have expected.
Full article - New window