But could he deliver?

[Ret10Echo]

I don't make the news...I just forward it...

Fact check: Obama and oil money 56 minutes ago

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has seized on a key feature of voters' economic concerns — rising fuel prices — and is casting himself as the candidate who could bring about energy independence because he is not beholden to energy companies.

Last week, Obama aired a television ad in Pennsylvania called "Nothing's changed" that outlines his energy proposals while declaring, "I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore."

THE SPIN: In his ad, Obama states: "Since the gas lines of the '70's, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. ... I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil."

The Clinton campaign last week accused Obama of "false advertising."

"Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists.

But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals.

Two of Obama's fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co.

In January and February alone, Obama received nearly $18,000 from Exxon Mobil workers, according to Federal Election Commission records. Most of the donations were of $250 or less; the money came from workers ranging from executives to engineers to geologists to shift supervisors. Overall, he has raised about $34,000 from Exxon Mobil workers since the beginning of his campaign. Exxon Mobil employees have given Clinton about $16,000 since the beginning of last year.

___

By Jim Kuhnhenn

[CPTAUSRET]

He scares me.

He has a great many people believing in him, simply because he speaks in platitudes. I need much more in a POTUS!

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil."

So, supposing he gets 8 years in the office, how, precisely, does he propose to free us of dependence on foreign oil? (purely rhetorical question)

By replacing oil with some other fuel? All over 8 years? There is no viable, scalable solution that offers such promise.

Or, by reducing demand? The change would be so wrenching we would yearn for the great depression.

Where this gets particularly interesting is when it is considered in light of Obama's proposed carbon tax - which would institute new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel. How far would the carbon tax be carried to reduce demand and pay for various social programs? On that, I see little information...

[Richard]

Thomas Sowell

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.

It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...ty_of_rhetoric

Walter williams

Some pundits ask whether America is ready for Obama. The much more important question is whether Obama is ready for America and even more important is whether black people can afford Obama. Let's look at it in the context of a historical tidbit.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...dy_for_america

A Speech Sen. Obama Could Have Given
by Victor Davis Hanson

Had Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., just said the following words last week in his speech on race in America, his problems with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would probably now be over:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson033108.html

Richard

and the Triumph of the Will.

[aricbcool]

Originally Posted by 504PIR

Few of his supporters get past the retrhoic about "hope". I suppose he is the new "Messiah" of the left who can do no wrong for the time being.

Originally Posted by nmap

So, supposing he gets 8 years in the office, how, precisely, does he propose to free us of dependence on foreign oil? (purely rhetorical question)

By replacing oil with some other fuel? All over 8 years? There is no viable, scalable solution that offers such promise.

Or, by reducing demand? The change would be so wrenching we would yearn for the great depression.

Where this gets particularly interesting is when it is considered in light of Obama's proposed carbon tax - which would institute new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel. How far would the carbon tax be carried to reduce demand and pay for various social programs? On that, I see little information...

I had a cynical friend once whose favorite quote was "Hope is the denial of reality." In this case it's the name of the game. It seems to me that the status quo for today's politician is to merely paint a rosy picture for the people to buy into and then navigate the opinion polls for as long as he/she can. Nmap brings up some very good, realistic questions and obstacles in the quest for greener/cheaper fuels. One of many realities that gets swept under the rug of tag-line politics.

Illegal immigration is another one, where America's sense of compassion and fair play is supposed to cancel out the reality of the enormous footprint that millions of illegal foreigners impose on our infrastructure, economy, and culture. Increases in crime (and the infrastructure to house the criminal), increases in the cost of healthcare, the drain on the economy in the form of government handouts and welfare, the resources spent on bilingual accomodations, not to mention the (IMO) negative influence on American culture... All are realities that are ignored when we hear the various "solutions" proffered by our politicians to give us "hope".

And the media is part and parcel to the players. They often bury the realities by either not reporting them or being partisan oriented with a purpose. Twain was right when he said "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." Case in point: the PBS special "Bush's War" posted earlier on these boards.

Iraq is probably the best example of the "denial of reality" trend. The reason behind this is how difficult it is for the average civilian to discover what the reality is. The media usually reports one of three things - deaths (with accompanying body count to date), op-eds on how horrible the idea was in the first place, or quotes of "important" people opposing the war. If they do report successful operations, it's generally with a negative twist somewhere. Meanwhile the politicians supporting the war have nothing but encouragement and hope for Iraq's future. With an issue so muddled, one comes to a whom/what do you believe dilemma. I remember I spoke with a Marine Corps Reserve Corpsman back in September. When asked why he joined... He said he wanted to see what was really going on over there.

That said, I wish politicians would rise above the rosy-picture "hope" speeches and into dialogue focused on action, with real solutions to this country's real problems. Maybe raise the intellectual threshold above what fits in a slogan or tag-line and get down to detailed plans for the betterment of this country. But, that might be a denial of reality in itself.

Regards,
Aric

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aricbcool

It seems to me that the status quo for today's politician is to merely paint a rosy picture for the people to buy into and then navigate the opinion polls for as long as he/she can. Regards,
Aric

As Professor Jim Christoph at Indiana University told us, politics is simply a game of "ins and outs." Those who are in power will do or say nearly anything to stay in power and those who are out of power will do or say nearly anything to get into power.

This isn't anything new. IMO, politicans are masters at identifying matters that are not necessarily a major issue, convincing people that they are major issues, offering solutions that only they can carry out on those matters, and then--much like weather forecasters trying to explain away their incorrect forecast--convincing voters that the issue they identified was more complex than originally thought...and that it is going to cost us all a lot more to "fix" a problem that either didn't need fixing or is beyond our capabilities to fix anyway.

Politicans remind me of the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls the curtain back and exposes the so-called wizard for what he really is--a fraud who then says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Am I cynical, not really...but my Dad taught me that if I wanted to hang on to the money I'd earned, I needed to be leery of snake oil salesmen, lawyers, clergymen, and politicians.

Richard

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by nmap

So, supposing he gets 8 years in the office, how, precisely, does he propose to free us of dependence on foreign oil? (purely rhetorical question)

By replacing oil with some other fuel? All over 8 years? There is no viable, scalable solution that offers such promise.

Or, by reducing demand? The change would be so wrenching we would yearn for the great depression.

Where this gets particularly interesting is when it is considered in light of Obama's proposed carbon tax - which would institute new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel. How far would the carbon tax be carried to reduce demand and pay for various social programs? On that, I see little information...

Before everybody jumps all over me...this is just an example...I'm not saying that O'baama is a potential dictator or that he has any Italian heritage...no really...

Mussolini promised to make the trains run on time.....He made a promise that hit the people where they were day-to-day....whether he had the slightest intent to do that is beside the point. He knew how to reach the "common" person.

If anyone takes a minute to look back on speeches delivered by past candidates and politicians you will find that they all start to sound pretty much the same (post industrial revolution). The same promises are rolled out again and again. People don't learn. They are all career politicians. They will say whatever it takes to keep their job and further their career. Any relationship to the original intent of our elected officials is conincidnetal....

On reducing dependancy on fossil-fuels...here is an example that I have been dealing with personally...

Let's say everyone in the Washington D.C. metro area gives up driving their car into work and rides public transportation, how much revenue would the State lose in gas-taxes, tolls and other commuter-related fees? That cut in revenue stream would be immediately followed by an increase in budget demand to support the mass-transit system that is now over taxed.

Their motivation to do this is what?