Now that Sen. Barack Obama has become President-elect Barack Obama, and Congress has beefed up its Democrat majority, what can we expect?
We have elected the most liberal senator in Congress. Do we expect that he will govern that way too? He talks eloquently about uniting this country. It makes everyone feel good when he talks that way. Who could argue with rhetoric like that? Yet, I haven’t heard him elucidate exactly what it is about the American people that need uniting.
Now, as Obama moves through his transition to the White House, this effort to square the political circle becomes the defining challenge in the months ahead. Which Barack Obama will dominate as he begins to govern?
Too much of the ambitious liberal, and he rekindles partisan squabbles he was supposed to transcend.
Too much the cautious mediator who reaches across the aisle to compromise with Republicans, and he risks losing the energy and idealism that attracted millions to his candidacy.
The historical significance of America’s choice is inescapable. Has Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream been realized? And what impact will this have on the race industry for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? An industry that ought to go bankrupt, with no federal bailout.
For a legislator that has no record of reaching across the aisle, President-elect Obama certainly has his work cut out for him.
The results are in. Although Escambia County remained red, the state went blue this time. City Council got some fresh faces to work with the new mayor-elect Mike Wiggins. The sheriff’s department got a new face as well in David Morgan. So the team is set. Let’s support them. Now let’s move forward.
On the national side, looking at the percentage of popular vote over the last twenty years, Barack Obama didn’t do too bad. At least he got over the 50% mark. As in the mid-term elections in 2006, any talk of a ‘mandate’ is wishful thinking. And by mandate, I mean that in a political sense, not a night out in San Francisco. We shall see how good a job he can do, among other things, as a uniter. He wasn’t my choice. But he will be our President. Now let’s move forward.
All the results are not yet in, but this is how it stands right now.
Obama is at 51%.
George H.W. Bush, 53.4% in 1988
Ronald Reagan, 50.7% in 1980, and 58.8% in 1984.
Bill Clinton, 43% in 1992
Bill Clinton, 49.2 % in 1996
George W. Bush, 47.9% in 2000
George W. Bush, 50.7% in 2004
The only scary thing I noticed in the presidential rundown is that there are 58 people living here that voted for Cynthia McKinney.
The Obama campaign is responding to posts like this ‘How Obama Supports The Coal Industry‘ by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves. Consider this, have you ever known anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, that needed so many people to explain what he says? Or rather, to explain away what he says? Their problem is simple. When he actually says what he means, his surrogates come out to say that no, that’s not what he means. The whole Obama campaign has been an illusion in so many ways. But I digress.
To this subject, the Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, as far as coal power plants go, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ His position is to take coal power plants off the table. That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the ‘caps and trade system’ to penalize any company that wants to build a coal-fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
Have your candles ready. It is hard to believe how Pennsylvania could be a blue state when one considers Obama’s position on coal. Keep in mind that 49 percent of all electrical power in the United States is generated by coal-powered generators. This audio clip is Barack Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, SF Gate.
Barack Obama: I haven’t been some coal booster.
Joe Biden: No coal plants here in America, build them if they’re going to build them over there.
And once again, speaking to his character, saying one thing while meaning another to someone whose vote you want, the Huffington Post saw it for what it was last May.
UPDATE 11/3/08, 23:02: The Obama campaign is responding to the above news by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves.
The Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the caps and trade system to penalize any company that wants to build a coal fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
It is bad enough that the United States spends over $700 billion per year on oil resources from the Middle East and elsewhere, when we have enough resources of our own which could be developed right here in the United States, creating jobs all over the country in the process.
The confluence of two problems, energy dependency and the financial market meltdown, seem to have the world looking to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for help. President Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia with his hand out for more production and lower oil prices. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown goes there looking for money for the International Monetary Fund’s ‘bailout reserves.’
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday he is confident that Saudi Arabia will contribute to the International Monetary Fund’s bailout reserves after he promised business leaders in the Gulf that they would have a say in any future new world economic order.
When you are the one in control of the oil spigot, with cash reserves that are as large as your oil reserves, it is not hard to imagine, nor is it surprising, to see this kind of attitude ‘from those that don’t like us very much.’
A senior British government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said that during talks the Saudis had been concerned about becoming a “milk cow” to prop up “basket case” economies in other parts of the world.
Both the energy and economic ‘crises’ can be solved by restoring common sense to both. By using our own resources and by paying attention to sound business practices by not offering mortgages to people that have no ability to pay. Those people are called ‘renters.’ In the meantime, with help from Saudi Arabia or not, the world will have to pay the consequences of our bad decisions.
On Tuesday, Nov 4, Americans can choose which of the two candidates, which of two parties, have the answer to today’s problems. Or at least an inclination as to which way to proceed. The choice seems pretty clear to me. One party wants to cut oil dependency by a small percentage, the other party wants to eliminate it. One party wants to make home ownership a ‘right,’ and the other wants to enable every citizen to get their own home based on their own efforts.
Socialism is easy, the government makes decisions for us, and innovation and productivity are depressed. Freedom is hard, you have to make your own decisions, innovation, productivity and the rewards that come with it are unlimited.
Ever since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, those of us on the political right have pointed out a few things about this candidate. His lack of experience, his nearly non-existent legislative record, and the the lack of public knowledge about just who the man is and where he is coming from. As has been written here many times, because he is, compared to his opponent John McCain, a relative unknown quantity, taking a look back into the man and his character and his life’s work becomes more important than it otherwise would.
So when it comes to Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, why is it that they do not know more about Obama? Is it because they live in their own mainstream media cocoon? Is it because they choose not to look into Obama’s past out of fear of what they will find? Is it because they accept the Obama campaign’s spin that any revelations about him are ‘distractions’ by those extreme right-wing crazies? Maybe it is some of each?
Those of us on the Right have done the work of the mainstream media. We found out much of what the two men who should know, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, do not know about Barack Obama.
Understand the context here when it comes to the inquisitiveness of the media. Here are two media giants, one who has an audience and one who does not, wondering just who Barack Obama is. They are admitting that they don’t know a lot about Barack Obama. Folks, the election is three days from now.
Who would have thought that the American people could possibly elect a President that they don’t really know?
Within 24 hours, the world knew all about ‘Joe the plumber.’ We know about an insubordinate member of Sarah Palin’s cabinet called ‘troopergate,’ and her sister’s messy divorce. We know where Sarah Palin’s clothes came from and how much they cost. Yet, for the last eight months we still don’t really know a lot about Barack Obama? Credit the media for keeping us uninformed.
Below is a clip of Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is. Note that neither of them asks the obvious question. Why?
Rush Limbaugh has the above audio clip and the transcript which is below.
ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.
ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.
BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
Sen. Barack Obama and his involvement with ACORN, the video. Thanks to Sean Hannity for putting this video together and making it available. Frankly, you won’t find it anywhere else. Not on CBS, NBS, ABS, MSNBS, or CNNBS.
Responding to the news and pictures of Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin hanging from a noose as part of a Holloween display, Sen. Obama had this to say: ” ”
I’ll fill in the quote as soon as he says something about it.
Oh wait. Is it too late for Obama to speak to this issue, now that it reportedly has been taken down?
When Barack Obama’s 30-minute advertisement comes on tonight, be prepared to see him sounding like he is not a socialist. But pay close attention to the words he uses. Like when he speaks of ‘fairness’ and ‘sharing’ things, he is playing with your money and smacks of the same socialist dogma that he talked about in that 2001 interview. And when it talks of greed on Wall Street, replace ‘Wall Street’ with ‘Government’ and see how it fits. There is no point in hoping that he will accept any responsibility, either for himself or his party (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Johnson, and others), for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. That will be placed upon Bush and Republicans so be prepared for that.
I doubt also that he will distance himself from people the likes of William Ayers or Rev. Wright, his reverend for 20 years, or the former head of the PLO news media Rashid Khalidi. If he mentions it at all, it will be in the context of the McCain campaign creating a ‘distraction’ from the ‘real’ issues. If he again tries to minimize the importance of those (he will use the word) ‘associations,’ and not ‘alliances,’ just know that he is lying through his teeth and trying to keep up the charade that these are people whom he does not support or have anything in common with.
On the lighter side, John Feehery has a fun idea by making a drinking game out of Obama’s show tonight.
Each time Obama proposes a program that will expand government by a billion dollars, take a drink. My guess is that you will be pretty drunk in the first 15 minutes, and completely bombed by the end of the program.
As a follow up to this post, Military Absentee Ballots Rejected In Virginia of 3 days ago, the question of whether those 255 out of 260 ballots received would be counted due to lack of witness addresses, has been resolved. These ballots WILL BE counted.
According to an official at the Fairfax County Registrar’s office today, it was decided yesterday that federal law, which under these circumstances does not require addresses of witnesses, will trump state law that does.
meteeffeniron: Good evening!
Happy New Year!
Health, luck and love!
Ross: If unions go away, no one suffers. If small businesses go away, everyone suffers.
Ann Coulter: The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
Newt Gingrich: “We are going to have the candidate of food stamps, the finest food stamp president in American history, in Barack Obama, and we are going to have a candidate of [...]
Neal Boortz: In the beginning there was a void. The void moveth to Washington whereupon it surroundeth itself with a sphincter muscle.
