Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

John McCain approaches self-parody

By

Really, it’s getting too easy.

On obscene profits by oil companies (from a DNC email, no link, but see this AP story):

McCain Today:  “So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy?  Well, for starters he supported the energy bill of 2005 – a grab-bag of corporate favors that I opposed.  And now he supports new taxes on energy producers.  He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas.  If the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big idea too – and a lot of good it did us.  Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need.  I’m all for recycling – but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970’s.”

McCain May 5th, 2008: “I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere — and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax — that’s not what bothers me — but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.” (video)

And, relatedly, on offshore drilling:

“There are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation, and I hope we can take the first step by lifting the moratoria,” he announced at a news conference at McCain headquarters in Crystal City…. During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the “special interests in Washington” that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same “moratoria should be lifted” and proposed incentives for the states “in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.”

Flippity floppity, Johnny’s on his way!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. In 1999, OPEC was an ally devoted tonot killing the golden goose, instead of a congomeration of jihadists (well, maybe they were since Kerry said so, but it wasn’t given currency by the Clinton admonistration who kept telling us to move along, nothing to see here…).  The price of oil in 1999 was about $35/barrel – the risks involved with offshore drilling didn’t merit the scant reward.

    <

    p>Things have changed somewhat.

    <

    p>Even your ‘expose’ between May and now – MCain was speaking of market distortions, and said he’d look at a tax – but went on to indicate that an overhaul of market incentives made more sense.  Ooooohhhh!!!   INCONSISTANCY!!!!

    <

    p>BTW – soemthing that never gets mentioned – these ‘obscene’ profits?  We’re talking absolute dollars, not dollar profit as a portion of product.

    <

    p>S0 – what are the oil compaies profit as a portion of a barrel, not absolute dollars?  I’ve read that profit is @ 10%, while state and Federal TAXES are @ 20% of price.

    • S0 – what are the oil compaies profit as a portion of a barrel, not absolute dollars?  I’ve read that profit is @ 10%, while state and Federal TAXES are @ 20% of price.

      <

      p>In 2007, Exxon Mobil turned $39.5 billion in profits.
      In 2007, Exxon Mobile produced 1.5257 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

      <

      p>Some quick math, and we find that Exxon made $25.89 per barrel of oil equivalent in profit.

      <

      p>Given that the average price of oil in 2007 was $72, you’re looking at profits being a full 36% of the price — or, in terms of markup, better than a 50% markup.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>If you’ve got a different version of the facts, please share.

  3. If the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big idea too – and a lot of good it did us.  Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil

    <

    p>OK, now lets look at the facts, courtesy of the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy.  Remember, Jimmy Carter was president 1976-1980.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>First, check out the blue line: imports.  Notice that it falls during the oil crisis of 1979, but that it continues downward and stays that way until about 1985.  Now look at domestic supply: it didn’t move much.

    <

    p>The lesson: we reduced our dependence on foreign oil, thanks to the 1978 CAFE standards and other Jimmy Carter policies.  As the policies of “supply siders” took hold in the 1980s and 1990s, we see net imports climb again.

    • was to tear the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter installed. Similar things happened to most of Carter’s energy initiatives. If we had only listened to Jimmy Carter and followed his suggestions back in the 1970s, we’d be in a much better energy situation now.

    • Is this one of those, figures lie and liers figure sort of graph?  Seriously, that is as feeble an argument I’ve seen:  “see, see, oil consumption dropped it must have been Carter!”

      <

      p>

      First, check out the blue line: imports.  Notice that it falls during the oil crisis of 1979, but that it continues downward and stays that way until about 1985.  Now look at domestic supply: it didn’t move much.

      <

      p>Your revisionist history notwithstanding, consumption dropped because oil prices spiked, inflation spiked and a recession followed.  Then, consumption rose (red line); foreign imports rose (blue line).  Then, inexplicably, domestic production fell to the lowest production in 2 decades. (yellow line)

      <

      p>The WPT was enacted in April of 1980 and remained on the books for 8 years.  

      <

      p>During the 8 years it was roundly criticized by Republican and Democrat alike and the NY times lamented that it was time for the Windfall profits tax to go, and thankfully, it did in ’88, yielding far less than expected revenues for the government.  

      <

      p>It was lousy tax policy then, and is now and the only explanation for reenacting this failed Carter policy is  that Obama, like most politicians, knows little about tax incidence, and fails to realize that corporations’ tax burdens are borne by individuals.

      <

      p>That is, even if you think the evil oil companies are earning too much money, a few things are clear:  1) a WPT won’t increase US production and 2) it won’t lower gas prices 3) the cash they send the IRS for Windfall profits tax won’t come from a money tree in the basement or a money-well drilled in the desert, it’ll come from individuals.

      • consumption dropped because oil prices spiked, inflation spiked and a recession followed

        <

        p>So the fact that MPG of new cars went from 20 in 1980 to 27 in 1982 had nothing to do with a dramatic reduction in demand?

        <

        p>Riiiiight.

        <

        p>

        corporations’ tax burdens are borne by individuals.

        <

        p>That’s absolutely right — it results in smaller consumer surplus and smaller producer surplus.  It doesn’t impact those two groups equally though.  Now, the question is, who does it hit harder — average blokes, or CEOs and trust funders?

        <

        p>Furthermore,

        <

        p>

        That is, even if you think the evil oil companies are earning too much money, a few things are clear:  1) a WPT won’t increase US production and 2) it won’t lower gas prices

        may well both be wrong.  A WPT won’t immediately increase US production of oil or natural gas, but investing that revenue into green energy production will result in more domestic supply.  Consider every wind turbine or gallon of biodiesel that made it to market with the help of federal subsidies.  Will it lower gas prices?  Not directly, but every person who’s able to use the new investment in mass transit to avoid driving will pay fewer of their dollars at the pump.

        <

        p>

        cash they send the IRS for Windfall profits tax … [will] come from individuals.

        <

        p>Absolutely.  And at the end of the day, the rich will be slightly less rich, the rest of us will be a few bucks lighter, many of us will have more transportation options, and we’ll all have cleaner air, cleaner water, and less threat from climate change.

        • Correllation doesn’t equal causation.

          <

          p>

          So the fact that MPG of new cars went from 20 in 1980 to 27 in 1982 had nothing to do with a dramatic reduction in demand?

          Riiiiight.

          <

          p>Probably not.  But you claim causation.  Yours is the burden of proof.  Remember that CAFE only applied to new cars.  1980-81 were recession years and new cars didn’t replace old ones.  So, which was it CAFE or the recession that CAUSED (look at your forehead) the reduced demand.

          • Even if you believe that nobody replaced an old car with a new one in a five year span, people still could have [and did] choose to drive their more fuel efficient vehicles when possible to save money, just as they’re doing right now.

            <

            p>There’s no question that the recession helped reduce consumption — but that recession saw reduced consumption at greater levels than other recessions in the past 40 years.

            <

            p>You don’t think any of the reduction was the result of increased gains from fuel efficiency.  You and Dick Cheney both.

          • I can’t help but notice that the only times we’ve seen oil consumption decline for at least three years in a row are: 73, 77, and 88 [eyeballing a chart].

            <

            p>In 1973 consumption was 924 Mtoe.  By 1975, it hit 879.
            In 1988 consumption was 941 Mtoe.  By 1990, it hit 911.

            <

            p>In 1977 consumption was 1018 Mtoe.  By 1983, it hit 827.

            <

            p>So, of all the recessions we’ve had since 1965, we’ve only seen a decline in oil consumption three times.  Of those three, two of ’em were declines of 5% or less.  In 1977-1983, however, we saw a decline of close to 20%.

            <

            p>So, causality vs. correlation.  Recession isn’t tightly correlated with a decline in oil consumption.  Jimmy Carter is.  Your claim that reducing speed limits to 55 and creating CAFE resulting in 30% more fuel efficient vehicles across the board just happened to coincide with the dramatic and much longer lasting reduction in demand?

            <

            p>Hogwash.

            • Declines in oil consumption in three recessions, with the greatest decrease in oil consumption in the 1980 recession, which correlates with Carter.  Therefore, it must have been Carter!

              <

              p>Of course, 1980 was also the only recession to date that was accompanied by an oil spike.  

              <

              p>You could say though, that Carter caused the recession and the oil spike therefore, it was Carter afterall who caused the drop in oil consumption.

              <

              p>Read your forehead:  Correlation doesn’t equal causation

              <

              p>Look at passenger miles driven:

              <

              p>-1960 to 1965.  Increase of 22.9%
              -1965 to 1970.  Increase of 26%
              -1970 to 1975. Increase of 12%
              -1975 to 1980. Increase of 7.5%
              -1980 to 1985. Increase of 12%

              <

              p>You going to tell me that the 7.5% in the Carter years was CAFE standards.  i.e. we got better mileage therefore we drove less.  Hogwash…to quote you.

              <

              p>But finally, from the horse’s mouth, or rather the horse’s energy economist’s mouth, BU’s Bob Leone:

              <

              p>

              Consider gasoline consumption, one of the most emotional and visible issues. Those who believe that consumers do not adjust to changes in energy prices usually favor corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) regulations requiring that new cars meet prescribed fuel economy standards. Advocates of CAFE believe that cars get more miles per gallon because the CAFE laws were enacted in the midseventies. Advocates of a market-oriented energy policy believe that a major part of the increase in miles per gallon was due to gasoline prices that were much higher in the late seventies and early eighties than in the late sixties and early seventies. While there is likely some truth to the arguments of both groups, economic research indicates that the benefits of a market-driven approach to energy policy tend to be underestimated and the benefits of regulation exaggerated.

              <

              p>So, if you ‘believe’ that Carter’s 2 years of CAFE magically lowered consumption, then go for it.   You’re lonely in your belief.

              • You mix a whole bunch of half-truths.

                <

                p>

                You going to tell me that the 7.5% in the Carter years was CAFE standards.  i.e. we got better mileage therefore we drove less.

                <

                p>No, we got substantially better mileage, and therefore we consumed less gas in spite of driving more.  Write that on your forehead, and get back to me when you’ve taken a half dozen statistics courses (as I have).  I understand causation and correlation.

                <

                p>The fact is, number of miles driven increased and yet consumption decreased.  The causation is clear: more fuel efficient vehicles.  If miles driven had decreased and fuel use decreased, that’d be much harder to show.  But the only way to drive more miles on fewer gallons of gas is to get more miles per gallon.*

                <

                p>So, your claim is therefore that CAFE was non-binding; that is, consumers would have been choosing those higher mpg vehicles without CAFE and the American motor companies would have been producing them anyway, because the recession forced everyone to pinch pennies.  That CAFE boosted mileage efficiency 35% was irrelevant, because the people would have been demanding that 35% gain anyway and the producers would have been producing it anyway.

                <

                p>You’re welcome to believe that, but you’ll be lonely in your belief.

                <

                p>P.S.

                <

                p>

                So, if you ‘believe’ that Carter’s 2 years of CAFE magically lowered consumption, then go for it.

                <

                p>CAFE didn’t go away in 1980, and the efficiency impacts of Carter’s CAFE standards were felt for far more than two years.  But don’t let facts and reason get in the way of your “Teh Fr33 market!11!!!!!!!11” tirade.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>* fun fact: the proof simply uses the fundamental theorem of calculus.

                • CAFE didn’t go away in 1980, and the efficiency impacts of Carter’s CAFE standards were felt for far more than two years.  But don’t let facts and reason get in the way of your “Teh Fr33 market!11!!!!!!!11” tirade.

                  <

                  p>CAFE standards DID’T go away.  Then, after the recession ended in 80-81 and the CAFE standards didn’t, the gas consumption resumed its trend line that was briefly interrupted by the Carter recession/fuel spike.

                  <

                  p>Even Carter’s Energy Economist laments that the mileage standards aren’t as effective as you claim.  

                • In fact, it’s possible that the CAFE standards made gas mileage worse.  The station wagon turned into an SUV because with the station wagon in the mfg line the manufacturers couldn’t meet the standards.  

                  <

                  p>All those soccer moms who drove 20 mph station wagons turned to 14 mph SUVs. Station wagons morphed into light trucks. The laws of unintended consequences continued unabated.  

                • in 1978, nobody was driving light trucks unless they needed ’em for work.  As such, CAFE didn’t touch light trucks.  The problem was that in the 1990s, when SUVs became popular, CAFE standards didn’t expand to incorporate SUVs.

                  <

                  p>The manufacturer’s could meet the standards — but soccer moms were sold that SUVs were safer than station wagons, and they were also cooler [more an issue for dads probably, but a very real issue].

                  <

                  p>P.S. It’s mpg, not mph.

                • After the immediate gains from the double nickle were gained, the basic population growth [and lack of attractiveness of many cities during that time] resulted in consumption growth.

                  <

                  p>But, notice how in 1984 the consumption was less than 1978, even though the economy was back on track and America had more people?  Why do you suppose that is?  Higher fuel efficiency.

                  <

                  p>That’s CAFE for you.  I don’t claim “how” effective the CAFE standards are, merely that they affect total consumption.  Carter’s Energy Economist doesn’t disagree with that claim one whit.

  4. I love this new strategy of McCain countering criticism of him being Bush’s third term by turing around and saying “Oh yeah? Well  at least I’m not running for Jimmy Carter’s second term like Obama!” Way to be hip and current, Johnny Boy. Next he’ll be saying an Obama administration “will exceed the depths of skullduggery perpetrated by the Ulysses S. Grant administration! America could ill afford to repeat the mistakes of the Crédit Mobilier scandal.”

    <

    p>Doesn’t McCain realize that most of Obama’s support is coming from people not old enough to remember the Carter administration?  We know Carter as Nobel Peace Prize winner, Habitat for Humanity advocate, and an occasional guest on The Daily Show. And for those old enough to remember Carter’s presidency, it was 30 years ago! And as “Jimmy Carter” reminds us in an Onion op-ed piece, he was actually right about some stuff:

    <

    p>

    Oh, what’s that I hear? The weather’s all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-f@#$ing-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-f@#$in’-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we’d all switched to solar power like I f@#$ing did back when we had a f@#$ing chance to do something about it. Think we’d still be sucking Saudi Arabia’s @#$% like a five-dollar whore?

    <

    p>Anybody that is scared of Obama being Carter II would be voting for McCain in the first place. Justaposed next to Bush and John McCain, what could be so bad about another Carter administration? How many Nobel Prizes has John McCain won lately?

    • And for those old enough to remember Carter’s presidency, it was 30 years ago!

      <

      p>Clearly he’s trying to energize the Republican base.  Do you know any Republicans between the age of 22 and 38?  I don’t.  

      • My kids are Republicans. I knew that would shock you. My 2 oldest (of 5) are in Law School and College and are proud (and lonely) Republicans. I agree that most younger people are not Republicans since they have not wise enough to know the ways of the world, or make enough money to realize the Democrats will be stealing most of it. The first realization usually comes with Social Security withdrawals from their paychecks, then gets worse around April 15th. Before long they start to see democratically enshrined programs where more of our hard earned money is given away until finally they realize they are making good money but driving a KIA because uncle Sam is taking all their money. Then, they become Republicans. And my kids vote every election unlike many other young voters (BO attracts 75,000 to stadium… but Hillary wins state 55-45…). They like the party, just forget to vote.

      • High gas prices, poor economy, difficulty with Iran? Because John McCain would never support policies that put America in those types of predicaments.

        <

        p>I still submit that the anti-Carter voting bloc, as huge as mobilized as it maybe, would be voting for McCain anyway.  

  5. called “Straight Talk…out of both sides of his mouth!!”  Check out these graphics:

    <

    p>

    <

    p>

    <

    p>

    <

    p>

    <

    p>They’re available at http://www.zazzle.com/knowyour… – will I get rich selling these?  Probably not – but maybe a few voters will get educated if they see them!

    • Whether it is BO (is Iran a threat?), John McCain (Hammas), John Kerry (most things) or any other pol, there should be honest and complete discussions about their positions. Too many times during debates and certainly in their opponents advertisements we only see a snippet of truth about a candidates position. It is a rare occasion that the truth ever comes out of their opponents mouths or thru the media for that matter.

      <

      p>They should be given a chance to talk about their positions and a town meeting setting would allow that to happen.

      <

      p>BTW… Concerning flip-flops, does anyone on this blog feel the same way they did on positions 5 years ago, 10 years ago or even 20 years ago? When situations change, wouldn’t the smarter person possibly change positions? Again, whether it is Republican or Democrat, a change in position should be questioned and not simply labeled as a flip-flop. You may feel one way about our energy policy but $150/barrel oil or $200/barrel may cause you to rethink things. This is not a flip-flop. Being for or against a tax break or tax increase in one economic period vs. another completely differing economic situation may be sound strategy and not a flip-flop. Other times it is simply a matter of wisdom kicking in.

      <

      p>This does not excuse any candidate from saying one thing today (or in a primary) in Kansas and another contrary thing tomorrow (or in the geneal election) in New Hampshire to appease the voters… THAT IS A FLIP-FLOP!

      • I can respect the fact that someone attuned to the nuance of a situation might change his mind, and I think that many of Kerry’s flip-flops were of this nature.  He also got crucified for his choice words with “for it before I was against it”.

        <

        p>However, many of McCain’s flip-flops are just pure pandering – see the t-shirt above about agents of intolerance, and the one about SS reform?  Both are pure panders for votes, and they deserve every bit of ridicule I can pile up on them, sound-bite or not.  There’s plenty more examples, and McCain isn’t shy about adding more to the mix, so I’m sure I’ll have an extensive line of t-shirts within a few weeks…

      • Mr. D., let me point out that Mr. McCain is running on “straight talk”. He has made all these about faces without acknowledgement and without explanation. If Mr. McCain only holds his mavericky positions for very short periods of times, he’s not what he claims to be.

        <

        p>Let’s contrast this with Mr. Kerry whom you dismiss with a mere parenthesis. Kerry’s rhetorical problem is not that he speaks in soundbites. (Are you new to Massachusetts?) It’s that he cannot speak in a soundbite if his life depended thereon. My complaint about Kerry’s speaking style is that it’s all wonk and no values. It drifts around burdened with excessive nuance.

        McCain’s has had three major shifts in position:

        1. After enjoying a front seat in the Keating Five scandal, McCain decided he’d give the press plenty of access. He decided his way out of this mess was to assume a mantle of reform. This was equal parts mantle and reform. He also learned how to make the press his base.
        2. After his loss in 2000 to Bush, he shifted to the political center. This is when you get all his anti-Falwell statements.
        3. As 2008 approached, he decided it was best to move to the right. He’s been enjoying the lint in Bush’s pocket for the past couple years. His voting record puts him at the bottom of the Senate, i.e., the farthest to the right.

        These shiftings about are clearly not principled, not characteristic of a maverick, and not characteristic of a straight-talker.

        • with respect to his own formerly state positions.  I mean, give the guy some credit here!

        • I would point out BO’s history of “shifts”, but he doesn’t have much HISTORY.

          <

          p>NAFTA –

          <

          p>THEN – He told the Associated Press that same month that “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America, and I never have.”

          <

          p>NOW – “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” Obama told Fortune. “Politicians are always guilty of that (“rhetoric was and amplified.”), and I don’t exempt myself,” Obama responded.

          <

          p>Campaign Financing –

          <

          p>THEN – “I will participate in public campaign finance.”

          <

          p>NOW – “I am opting out” (or as the Boston Globe unbiasedly reported “In a shift, Obama rejects public financing” Oh, a “shift” sounds so pleasant.

          <

          p>Iran as a threat –

          <

          p>THEN (May 18, 2008) – “They don’t pose a serious threat to us.”

          <

          p>NOW (May 20, 2008) -“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the regions and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust.”

          <

          p>Israel

          <

          p>THEN- Jerusalem “must remain undivided.””… Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.)

          <

          p>NOW (The NET DAY) – “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

          • 1.)  The NAFTA flap was widely overblown by a Rovian smear from Canada.  Obama said it should be renegotiated, and your NOW quote does nothing to refute that position.

            <

            p>2.)  He never said he would participate in public financing – he said he would pursue an agreement on public financing with his opponent if he became the nominee.  McCain has no real interest in agreeing to public financing, so Obama opted out.

            <

            p>3.)  On Iran – the full quote from 5/18 is:  “They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.”  Here’s a link to a YouTube video of the speech:

            <

            p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

            <

            p>Does Iran have thousands of nuclear ICBMs pointed at us?  No, they don’t, so Obama spoke the truth.  However, Iran does have an illicit nuclear program that needs to be dealt with, and Obama is of a mind to negotiate with them – just like Kennedy talking to Kruschev, Nixon talking to Mao, and Reagan talking to Gorbachev.  Were those presidents wrong to talk with our enemies?  Of course not – but the current occupants of the White House have the 8th grade mentality of not talking to our enemies, which you apparently agree with.

            <

            p>4.)  You failed to provide me with dates on your Jerusalem argument – please do so, and I’ll be happy to shred it with the full context…

            • 1 BULL. He got into it during the debate and wanted to sound so TOUGH on NAFTA and he was going to protect the people from Ohio (before the primary), then he backpedals as he finds out more about what NAFTA really is. What can you expect from a newbie rookie like BO. That’s why he’s running from the debate challenge.

              <

              p>#2 – BULL AGAIN. Changing his mind because he’s getting so many donations.

              <

              p>#3 – Strike 3 – 2 days apart he makes diametric remarks.

              <

              p>BO keep stalking about how he is going to be a different politician, he’ll run a campaign unlike others, he’ll be the candidate of change… he is running like every other liar who ever ran for Dog catcher on up, for either party.

              <

              p>All your excuses above are no different than JM’s people defending the 3 second sound bites BO releases. I thot BO wasn’t going to run THIS TYPE OF CAMPAIGN, thought he wasn’t going to TAKE IN ALL THESE DONATIONS and get dirty. He’s no different. And he’ll be joining the long list of other loser Democratic candidates like Kerry, Mondale, Dukasis… Maybe they’ll name a library after him or an aquatic center.

              <

              p>My comments were made solely in response to the misstatements about JM on the original thread.

              • …doesn’t make it so.

                <

                p>1.)  Are you saying that the right-wing Canadian government didn’t step in with a smear about one of Obama’s unpaid  foreign policy advisors?  Go read a news site, that’s fact, not bull.  And it was Clinton making NAFTA an issue in Ohio – that’s when Obama set the record straight, and showed that she’d been a NAFTA cheerleader in the nineties.   In the debate, both of them said they’d like to see NAFTA renegotiated, as it can be under the terms of the agreement.  Now he says he doesn’t want to “unilaterally renegotiate” it, which is a softening of his position as he moves to the center for the GE, but hardly a pandering flip-flop like we’re seeing McCain execute.  For example, just look at some of the quotes on the graphics I posted – McCain is flipping and flopping so hard, he’s going to break saomething!

                <

                p>2.)  I’m glad to see that you’ve noticed how Obama is “getting so many donations” – he’s approaching 2 million donors, 90% of whom give less than $100.  His campaign is already publicly financed, in its truest form, and there’s absolutely no reason for him to opt in to the (presently broken) public financing system.

                <

                p>3.)  “2 days apart he makes diametric remarks”.  You selectively shortened his quote in order to make the remarks seem more diametrically opposed – that’s called taking someone out of context, and it’s a dishonest debating tactic.  I called you on it above, and provided video evidence of what you did.  You’ve already lost that argument, you should stop using it now.

                <

                p>As for Obama being a different politician, I think he still is – he’s a Democrat with some fucking spine, and I’m here to tell you that that’s a pretty refreshing thing to see, at least for me.  I can understand how you must hate seeing McCain getting trounced like this – never fear, there’s always 2012!

                • I woman whom I hold in such low esteem, maybe approaching MRSA is Joan Vennochi. Mixed in amongst all the Obama love vomit in today’s Globe, she has written an article saying much of what said above. That both BO and JM are flip-flopping on issues. In particular, she mentioned Public financing, Jerry “I hate white people” Wright, Muslims in the picture in Detroit, Iran as a threat and the James “find me a VP-get me a cheap mortgage” Johnson (or was that Sen Dodd).

                  <

                  p>Now she is a card carrying, take all working people’s money to give to slackers, don’t drill in Alaska OBAMA supporter and even she has the fortitude to see the truth ( I almost used another expression for calling something what is really is but I’m sure I would hear “RACIST CODE WORD” screamed at me).

                  <

                  p>Grow up, your guy is another liar like the rest of them. His pandering to white people over the next few months (like his speech on Father’s Day) should make for some tight sphincters in liberal land but no tighter than November 4th.

                  <

                  p>Oh, BTW before your cast aspersions …

                  <

                  p>3.)  “2 days apart he makes diametric remarks”.  You selectively shortened his quote in order to make the remarks seem more diametrically opposed – that’s called taking someone out of context

                  <

                  p>You mean like the way the left (you) has shortened JM’s remarks about the US Military being in Iraq for 100 years… as opposed to his true remark where he was comparing our troops serving in Iraq safely as they are in Germany, South Korea, Japan… PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN’T THROW STONES!!!

                  <

                  p>

                • …and as far as McCain’s full context of the 100 years in Iraq?  The full context is that we can stay there as long as US soldiers aren’t getting killed.  How do we reach that point?  How do we go from a shooting war where our soldiers are in the middle to a peace-time presence?  He has no plan by which that can be accomplished.

                • we are talking about “taking things out of context (your words)”. You said I was doing it and I responded that YOU were doing it first.

                  <

                  p>Don’t try to change the subject at hand. We can talk about JM’s view/plan of the war on another blog thread. Why don’t you be an adult and simply state your guy is just as guilty as McCain (and Hillary, Romney and so many others) of flip-flopping and/or using untruths against their opponents.

                  <

                  p>It is hard to converse about any subjects when someone is so zealous about their peeps that they can’t people objective… ever.

                • The full context of McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” involves an impossibility – he states that we need to keep our soldiers in that part of the world because Al Qaeda is there, planning attacks on America, and that we should do this as long as we’re not taking casualties.  But how do we reach that point where we aren’t taking casualties?  There is no path by which we can peaceably remain in Iraq like we have done in Japan, Gemany, Korea, etc – 100 years in Iraq means 100 years taking casualties in Iraq, there’s no two ways around that.

                  <

                  p>You, on the other hand, shortened Obama’s quote in a manner that utterly changed its meaning – from “they [Iranians] don’t pose a serious threat to us the way Soviet Union did” to “they [Iranians] don’t pose a serious threat to us” – that’s blatantly dishonest.  It’s probably not your fault, the RNC fed you that line, right?  See, they’re dishonest, and they’re lying to you, which then makes you look foolish on the blogs because their lies don’t withstand scrutiny.  Maybe you shouldn’t be so zealous believing people who are lying to you.

                  <

                  p>Does Obama shift his position as needed?  Yes, of course he does, he’s a politician – but he doesn’t twist in the wind the way McCain does.  The quotes I use on my t-shirts are all real and documented – McCain has pandered right, left, and every spot in between for votes, and he shows no sign of slowing down on that.  Barack sticks to his principles and adjusts his stance where necessary – he’s not perfect, but no candidate ever will be, and I’ll take his shifts over McCain’s flip-flops and panders any day.  Sorry if I’m too zealous for you, but at least no one’s lying to me like your peeps are doing to you…

                  <

                  p>

  6. McCain and the Repubs are going to go after Obama by calling him the next Jimmy Carter. Do they realize Carter was in office 30 years ago? Or that a very large portion of the voting population can’t even remember it? Or that Jimmy Carter’s actually become fairly popular lately? Or that McCain’s trying to succeed The Worst President Ever, by trying to be even badasser (ie his cute joke: bomb, bomb, bomb, bombbomb Iran)?  

    • <

      p>The right-side quote was a little crowded, but it works!  Thanks for the video…

Archives