Posts Tagged ‘Jay Rockefeller’

Gas Prices Have Risen 55% On Obama’s Watch And Continue To Soar

March 27, 2010

Remember all the blame directed at George Bush when gas prices rose?  Remember how the Democrats literally began federal investigations over the price increases in what amounted to a political hit job?

Well, gasoline prices have quietly increased 55%, a dollar a gallon, under Obama’s watch, and suddenly the same Democrats who swore that high crimes and misdemeanors had been committed under Bush are now completely silent.

From the Washington Times:

Gas up $1 a gallon on Obama’s watch
Pressure rises for exploration
Thursday, March 25, 2010
By Stephen Dinan  and Kara Rowland

Gas prices have risen $1 since just after President Obama took office in January 2009 and are now closing in on the $3 mark, prompting an evaluation of the administration’s energy record and calls for the White House to open more U.S. land for oil exploration.

The average price per gallon across the U.S. hit $2.81 this week, according to the Energy Information Administration. That was up from $1.81 the week of Jan. 26, 2009, just after the inauguration, and marks the highest price since Oct. 20, 2008.

John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said price increases are a result of the cost of crude oil, thanks to a decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries not to raise production even as economic growth in countries such as Russia and China spurs more demand.

“From all indications, we’re going to see $3 gas again this summer,” he said.

The Obama administration also blames the market for the high prices and argues that its record for expanding energy development has been solid over the past year.

“The prices are set by the world market,” said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, which manages federal lands that would be leased for oil exploration.

Gas prices have been on a roller-coaster ride over the past decade, dropping to near $1 after President George W. Bush’s first year in office, crossing the $2 mark in 2005 and reaching $4 in June 2008 before Congress and Mr. Bush took action, lifting presidential and congressionally imposed moratoriums on expanding offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. Bush lifted the presidential moratorium in July that year. The congressional moratorium expired Sept. 30, and prices fell precipitously, dropping more than $1 in October.

“The reason that it dropped is because the U.S. sent a signal to the markets, by dropping the moratoria, that we’re going to drill on our lands. Obviously, we never followed up, and thus you see the crisis gradually rising,” said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee.

He said the solution is the same for both the short-term and long-term prices: Assure the markets that the U.S. will pursue domestic exploration.

You can see the impact that America drilling for its own oil has on prices – and how despicable the mainstream media can be in covering up the truth – in the following CBS piece entitled “The Immediate Benefit Of Offshore Drilling” from July 17, 2008:

After trading at a record high of $147 a barrel Friday, the price of oil saw its largest one-day drop since the 2003 beginning of the Iraq war on Tuesday, falling $6.44 a barrel. Wednesday, it fell another $3.71, to $135.03, and at one point was trading as low as $132.

So what happened? As is usually the case with markets, a variety of factors caused this dramatic drop. According to the Associated Press, the Energy Information Administration announced that U.S. crude-oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels; beleaguered banks have been selling off valuable energy contracts to pay for other debts; and there’s even some speculation that computer programs used by Wall Street may create a “cascading effect” once prices start to drop.

But bizarrely, the AP didn’t mention that on Monday – again, the day of the single biggest one-day drop in oil prices in five years – President Bush removed the executive order imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States.

To think that this dramatic and unexpected move by the Bush administration didn’t have a significant effect on oil prices is folly. Even Democrats admit that relatively small margins in oil production could have a huge impact on prices.

The price per barrel of crude oil – which was at an all-time high the day Bush signed the moratorium that ended the ban on offshore drilling after going up and up and up to that point – continued to drop and drop.  By September, it was below $109 a barrel.  By October it had dropped even more.  And it kept dropping.

But now in the age of Obama, it’s going up and up and up again.  We have had a 55% increase in the price of our gasoline during a terrible recession.  Obama’s energy policies have hurt this nation badly at an incredibly vulnerable period, without so much as a peep from most of the media.

Barack Obama threatened to bankrupt the coal industry – which produces 49% of our nation’s electricity – and said that:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

He told just enough lies and half-truths to get coal-state Democrats such as  West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller to get them to believe he wouldn’t destroy their economies.  But now that he’s elected he’s free to break those promises and pursue ruinous policies.  Rockefeller is now saying of Obama that:

“he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

But it’s like, “Sorry Sucker.”  When you vote like a fool, you receive a fool’s fate.

Anyway, maybe you thought, “Well, I’m not in a coal producing state,” or “I’m not in a coal-fired electric grid,” so you thought Obama’s shockingly bad energy policies didn’t matter.

But you’re still going to have to put gas in your car, and Obama’s going to see to it that it costs you a pretty penny to do it.

In fact, gas will have to rise to the European level prices of at least $7/gallon in order for Obama’s policies to impact CO2 levels as per his energy policy.  So you can bet that fuel prices will continue to rise, and rise, and rise.

We’ve had a clear call from the American people to drill for our own oil before.  The Democrats who stopped us from drilling in the first place went utterly nutjob ballistic

With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

– in their campaign to prevent domestic energy production – until an overwhelming majority in American opinion made them change their tune.  And then they pledged that they would allow the offshore drilling ban to expire.

Only they didn’t, because Democrats are liars without shame.  Obama signed a brand new moratorium banning domestic drilling.  There will be no domestic energy production under his watch – unless you count the pathetic little toys he says he’ll build that won’t even put so much as a scratch our energy requirements.

Oh, Obama was perfectly willing to lie to us about domestic oil the same way he lied to Jay Rockefeller about domestic coal.  Lies come incredibly easy for Obama – especially since the lamestream propaganda won’t expose him – which leaves him free to tell a whopping load of them.

We have TRILLIONS of barrels of recoverable oil.

Democrats keep saying that there’s no point drilling for our own oil because it would take ten years for the oil to get into system and bring prices down.  First of all that isn’t true; energy companies say they could be up and running in only 3-4 years.  But even if we assume their ten-year figure, they’ve been saying it for decades – and if we’d drilled ten years’ ago, we’d have that oil in our system NOW, wouldn’t we?

Obama’s policy is based upon undermining oil, coal, and natural gas in order to foster the development of solar, wind, and other energy methods that the moonbeam crowd favor.

Here’s the problem: we can’t even BEGIN to address our energy needs with these “environmental” sources.  You get so much more energy at so much lower of a cost from oil, coal, and natural gas versus solar or wind that it isn’t even funny.

A couple of charts illustrate this point:


We need to harness our domestic energy.  We need oil, coal, and natural gas.

We’re not going to get them under Obama, or under any form of Democrat rule.

You can count on seeing a shocking trend of higher and higher gasoline prices, to go with a “necessary skyrocketing” of our energy prices, under Barack Obama.

At least until we vote Democrats out of office.

Obama’s Liberal Minions Turning On Him

February 18, 2010

When Democrats Attack…

Obama’s Own Begin to Turn on Him

Peter Wehner – 02.12.2010 – 4:23 PMWhen a presidency and an agenda are collapsing at the rate that President Obama’s are, it isn’t long before his party begins to distance itself from him. We’ve seen plenty of signs of this lately. has a story today titled “Family feud: Nancy Pelosi at odds with President Obama.” According to the story:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s increasingly public disagreements with President Barack Obama are a reflection of something deeper: the seething resentment some Democrats feel over what they see as cavalier treatment from a wounded White House.

Then there are the comments by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said, “He [Obama] says ‘I’m for clean coal,’ and then he says it in his speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here. And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Much of what President Obama has said hasn’t been believable to many of us for quite some time now. But when influential figures in a president’s own party begin to make statements such as these — especially when you’re only 13 months into a presidency — it’s clear that things are beginning to become a bit unglued. Party discipline is tossed aside; the intra-party sniping makes the situation even worse. And the vicious cycle Democrats are caught in merely accelerates.

It has dawned on many Democrats that in hitching their fortunes to Obama and Obamaism, they have put themselves at enormous political risk. They are all complicit in this; Obama himself outsourced much of his agenda to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The entire Democratic establishment is the architect of what is shaping up as an epic political failure. But Mr. Obama is head of the Democratic party, and so the responsibility lies with him more than with anyone else. He is primus inter pares. And he is now, with every passing week, the target of their unhappiness. More is sure to follow.

This isn’t going to end well for them

There are more and more signals that Obama’s failed leadership is splitting Democrats apart.

We can add to the list Democrat Senator Evan Bayh:

“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

We can add to the list Democrat Senator Al Franken:

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

We can add to that list bigtime liberal donor and media owner Mortimer Zuckerman who wrote an article entitled, “He’s Done Everything Wrong.”  In bullet points, Zuckerman says:

* Obama punted on the economy

* He reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

* He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach.

* He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda.

* He didn’t address the main issue.

* His health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country.

* He said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was.

* We’ve seen the kind of buying off of politicians like never before.

* This revolting political corruption started at the top.

* Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is     disgusting, just disgusting.

* The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the     health-care bill. It was pure union politics.

* It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery.

* Obama is trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much.

* This is not leadership.

* Obama has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office.

* He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five    Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him.

* He’s done everything wrong.

* Liberal Mort Zuckerman don’t consider this a triumph. He considers it a disaster.

* Quote: “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center,and the political people were on the sideline.  In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

* Mort Zuckerman is very disappointed: “We endorsed him. I voted for him.  I supported him publicly and privately.”

* He’s already laid in huge problems for the country.

* The fiscal program was a disaster.

* Zuckerman concludes: “It’s very sad. It’s really sad.”

* A major leader told Zuckerman, “We are convinced that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned that he is not strong to support his friends.”

* The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around.

* The Democrats are going to get killed in this election.

* His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works… That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

* I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

We conservatives need to keep pouring on the fire.  We dare not relax and let up.

But we can take little mini-breaks between battles, prepare a batch of popcorn, and then sit back and watch the Democrats tear into each other as their party sinks like the Titanic.

Democrat Senator Bayh Puts Kibosh On Two Giant Liberal Lies

February 17, 2010

Senator Evan Bayh apparently finally had a bellyfull of the Democrats steering the ship of state full speed ahead straight into a giant iceberg.

Bayh described a scenario of brain-dead politics and hyper-partisanship.

I remembered what the New York Times describes as the promise at the core of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

And I remembered pointing out that Obama’s promise to transcend ideology and partisanship was his signature lie.

And I remembered that Obama is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history.

The most liberal Senator in Congress had this message for Republicans who tried to share their objections to his massive stimulus program: “I won.”

And what followed from that point was a far leftwing agenda being shoved down Republicans’ throats without any attempt to win their votes via compromise.  The reasoning was that Democrats had total control of the House to go along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.   Republicans were shut out of crucial negotiations.  And they were shut out as a general rule.  They did not get to have anything to do with writing the bills that they were told they had to vote for in order to be “bipartisan.”  They didn’t even get to READ bills with enormous ramifications before the votes.

The Democrats constantly did their business behind closed doors.

Even their meetings on “transparency” were done behind closed doors.

It wasn’t just Republicans.  The liberal Democrats were so partisan and so secretive that even the moderate blue dog Democrats found themselves shut out of ObamaCare negotiations.

The constant secrecy and continual backroom wheeling and dealing surrounding ObamaCare got so bad that senior Democrat Senator Dick Durbin was forced to make this admission to John McCain’s complaint that Republicans were kept completely in the dark:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Obama would flood the airwaves with message after message about transparency and about reaching out to Republicans with a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.  But what he says has a bad habit of not jiving with what he does.

Recently, another top Democrat Senator, Jay Rockefeller, pointed out regarding Obama’s promises that he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Barack Obama and many Democrats have falsely demagogued the Republicans as “the party of no.” But that demonization is now exposed for the lie it always was:

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

The Republicans had been submitting bills to Obama all along.  Which means that every single time he characterized them as “the party of no” who weren’t contributing their own ideas to the debate, he was knowingly cravenly and despicably lying.

The only thing that is “bipartisan” now is that Democrat and Republican alike have no reason to trust Obama.

Obama promised again and again that he would transcend the political divide.  That was HIS promise, not the Republican minorities’ promise.  It was Obama who broke his word.  And it is Obama who should be held accountable to his broken promise.

Now disgusted former Obama supporter Mortimer Zuckerman put it this way:

“In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.”

All that garbage wasn’t the Republicans’ fault.  It was Obama’s and the Democrat leaderships’ fault.

So that’s one giant liberal lie put to bed.  Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t have been more hyperpartisan or more ideological.

The Republicans were right to oppose their agenda.  And the polls of American voters that have radically swung in their favor prove it.

The second giant liberal lie that Evan Bayh put the kibosh on is the myth that the stimulus has somehow been a giant success in spite of the fact that it was a giant failure even by the Obama administration’s own standard.  Obama’s key economic advisers assured us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.

Even the leftist Huffington Post had this to say back in June of last year:

“The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.”

Unemployment has soared past that 8% figure – and according to Obama’s own projections joblessness will be well over 8% until at least 2012.

Obama and his minions have repeatedly made spectacular claims about the “success” of the stimulus that fly in the face of reality.  According to Obama’s own website, by the White House’s own numbers, Obama only claim 595,263 jobs that were at a cost of $272 billion.  That comes out to an astronomical $456,941 per job.

And at that rate, we can’t AFFORD for Obama to “create” any more jobs.

Democrat Senator Evan Bayh, a former governor who presumably knows something about job creation, absolutely destroyed the myth of any kind of stimulus success.

[Youtube link]


“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Obama and his supporters are falsely claiming over and over again that the stimulus created 2 million jobs.  And a prominent Democrat is essentially saying, “Show me just ONE.”

The number of lies that have been told about the Obama stimulus have been utterly breathtaking.

And the American people who’ve clearly heard at least one too many lies from Obama agree with Evan Bayh.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

And 48% of Americans polled don’t think porkulus will EVER create jobs.

All that nothingness for the low, low price tag of only $862 billion.

As we head into the future, we find that the Democrats are still playing games rather than dealing fairly and squarely with legislation.

Democrats are still demagoguing, misrepresenting, and lying.

And until they quit – or until they are voted out – Republicans would be wise to avoid them and refuse to play around with them.

Leading Democrat Says Obama “beginning not to be believable to me”

February 14, 2010

Oops.  Joe Wilson was right all along.  He just didn’t phrase it politely enough.

West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller ended his description about Obama lying to him on coal by saying, “And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

So maybe Joe Wilson would have been okay if he’d just shouted out, “You’re beginning to not be believable to me!”

There’s that saying, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  I wonder what they say after someone has been fooled like 50,000 times.

I only know what you’d call such a person: a liberal.

Obama’s starting to be “not believable” on coal …
posted at 4:54 pm on February 12, 2010 by Ed MorrisseyWhen it comes to coal, Barack Obama lost all of his credibility with the Right when he told the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008 that any new coal-burning plant would get bankrupted in an Obama presidency, thanks to tough environmental policies he planned to use to discourage fossil fuel use.  As for Democrats and crossover voters in Coal Belt states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, they clung to Obama’s promise to support clean-coal technology, and to his appointment of a supposedly coal-friendly EPA chief.  Now, however, after the EPA has announced its plans to consider carbon dioxide a dangerous emission and the halting of coal-mining permits, not even Senator Jay Rockefeller can maintain the illusion any longer (via Geoff A):

For too long, some coal-state members of Congress accepted Obama’s promises without noticing the 800-pound gorilla in the room – administration policies. There is evidence that may change.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., seems to have become a convert. Last week he signaled strongly that promises from the White House are not enough. During a Senate hearing on Obama’s proposal for the 2001 budget, Rockefeller lashed out.

According to one published report, Rockefeller made it clear “he isn’t sure he trusts the president’s commitments to coal. …” Referring to Obama’s pledges to support coal, the senator complained that, “He says it in his speeches, but he doesn’t say it in (his budget proposal). He doesn’t say it in the actions of (EPA Administrator) Lisa Jackson. And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Gee … ya think? How thick-headed does one have to be to not understand Obama’s point in saying this:

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Is Rockefeller sincere? I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that anyone with enough cranial power to breathe without written instructions could have misinterpreted what Obama promised in this Chronicle interview. It didn’t get made public until a few days before the election, and people in the Coal Belt may not have heard about it in time, but it’s been part of the record ever since. And as Rockefeller himself points out, the administration’s actions on coal for the past thirteen months have made clear their animus towards that “great natural resource.”

If Rockefeller is sincere, then he deserves a Captain Louis Renault Award for his shock, shock! at Obama’s hostility towards the industry that powers his home state. If not, then West Virginians need to replace Rockefeller at the first opportunity — unfortunately, four years out — to send someone a little more honest and less clueless to the US Senate. Either way, all of the rest of us who have been warning about Obama’s environmental extremism can certainly add Rockefeller’s belated complaint to the mountain(top) of evidence for our argument.

“There’s a sucker born every minute”, goes the famous phrase.

With “sucker” being a correct but impolite expression for “Democrat.”  Just like “he’s beginning to not be believable to me” is a polite way of saying, “YOU LIE!’

For myself, I’m trying to remember if there are any promises that Obama actually HAS kept.  At best, the nays far outnumber the ayes.

Obama Trivializes Attacks On McCain’s Military Career

July 1, 2008

Let me begin by repeating Obama surrogate and possible Obama VP pick Wesley Clark’s attack against John McCain’s military career:

(CNN) — Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain’s military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.

The dust-up began with Clark’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “untested and untried.”

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
Don’t Miss

“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.

And – while we’re on the subject – led me add the comments made yesterday by Obama advisor Rand Beers:

“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers. “I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.”

“So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”

Can you believe this? Here we have an Obama advisor who is out there saying that John McCain’s getting shot down, terribly injured in the line of duty, beaten, and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton leave him unfit to lead this country and command its military versus some liberal hippie protester getting herpes from all the free love and getting high on LSD at Woodstock. Unbelievable.

When you elect liberals, you put moral idiots in positions of power.

Barack Obama had this to say:

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” he said. “I think that, you know, right now we’re here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.”

Any notion that Obama “repudiated” Clark’s remarks is just plain wrong. And now he dismisses the attacks against McCain’s military service as nothing worth worrying over.

I’m not in Ohio, and I’m not staying up at night. But I am outraged about it. I wrote about this issue yesterday; but there’s just so much more that needs to be said about it.

Clark’s and Beers’ comments follow in the wake of other Obama supporters such as Jay Rockefeller – who basically called McCain a warmongering killer who callously dropped bombs from 35,000 feet – and Tom Harkin – who said a family history of military service renders one dangerous and unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

It’s not inartful; it’s despicable. And after four Obama surrogates come out with this crap, there is little question that it is part of a coordinated Obama campaign strategy.

Obama is a complete wuss on foreign affairs and military issues – and his advisers know it. There is no way that the Obama campaign could possibly elevate their man – who may have walked past a recruiting station once – to the level of John McCain. Solution? Chop down John McCain. Insult, criticize, question, demonize, and trivialize a war hero’s record.

It’s no big deal. Just ask Barack Obama.

Every one of our presidents since World War II save one has served in the military. The overwhelming majority of our nation’s leaders since the days of our founding fathers have fought for their country before they tried to lead it.

Military service encourages the truest form of patriotism, the willingness to lay down one’s life for one’s country. Has Barack Obama demonstrated that total level of commitment? John McCain certainly did. Life in the military encourages the finest qualities a person can aspire to: honor, dedication, commitment, perseverance, and the moral clarity that results from having stared evil in the eye.

John McCain stared evil in the eye when he endured repeated acts of torture at the hands of North Vietnamese in the Hanoi Hilton. The closest Barack Obama ever came to staring evil in the eye was when he looked into the face of the pastor he chose to marry him and baptize his children.

The military teaches genuine leadership as no institution possibly can: every soldier who has ever walked, ridden, or flown into battle understands the meaning of the words, “FOLLOW ME!” as no one else ever could.

John McCain came back from injuries that would have made lesser men quit to regain his flight status and command the U.S. Navy’s largest squadron. He led that unit with distinction. By way of comparison, just what on earth has Barack Obama led?

Neither John McCain nor any of his surrogates have attempted to claim that John McCain’s military record – or even his 5 1/2 year captivity in the Hanoi Hilton – are sufficient to by themselves qualify him to be president. Wesley Clark – who refused to back down from his statements again this morning on Good Morning America – offers the straw man argument of a fool. And Clark’s charge, that a distinguished and heroic 15 year military career means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is likewise the position of a fool.

That’s clearly what Clark is saying: that McCain’s military experience, his combat, his captivity, his leadership – and all the other qualities that military life develops from Annapolis to the field – mean absolutely nothing, and do not qualify him one iota more than a man like Barack Obama who never did squat.

Wesley Clark says that John McCain is “untried and untested.”  I would argue that Wesley Clark is untried and untested: when did HE sustain years of torture for his country?  No candidate for president has ever been more tried, and more tested, than John McCain.

Wesley Clark’s comments are all the more despicable coming from a military man. While it doesn’t rise to the same level of sheer vileness as Rep. John Murtha’s demonzing innocent Marines in Haditha as cold-blooded killers, it is the same sort of loathsome crap that is so typical from Democrats. Comments criticizing the military, or our warriors in uniform, are NOT somehow sanctified simply because the scumbag uttering the words was once a soldier himself; quite the opposite: it makes them all the worse.

Benedict Arnold was an American military officer too. But his name is now synonymous with “traitor” today. Today we could make the name “John Murtha” a synonym for treason as well. And hopefully Wesley Clark’s name will fade into the obscurity of politically radioactive losers after his 15 minutes are over.

And therein lies the answer to the question that one dare not question one man’s military service or patriotism: one certainly may, but only if that one man committed an act of betrayal.  John Murtha did (by falsely accusing innocent Marines of war crimes); Kerry did (by falsely accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes, for example); John McCain did not.

Barack Obama’s campaign, in choosing to try to cut down a war hero – and by so doing cut down the military itself – reveals Obama’s REAL attitude about the military and the men and women who serve their country in uniform.

Clark’s Dismissal of McCain’s Military Service Part of Coordinated Pro-Obama Smear Campaign

July 1, 2008

It appears pretty clear that there is a concentrated effort to attack and undermine John McCain on his greatest strength as candidate for president: his military service and his war record. Wesley Clark became the latest Obama surrogate attempting to undermine McCain’s military record Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation:

(CNN) — Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain’s military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.

The dust-up began with Clark’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “untested and untried.”

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
Don’t Miss

“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.

Clark’s comments are clearly part of a trend. Consider Democratic Senator and Obama surrogate Jay Rockefeller’s attack on McCain’s record in an April 8, 2008 interview with the Charleston Gazette:

Rockefeller criticized Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president. “Senator McCain does have a temper. But today, he speaks in a monotone on the campaign trail.”

Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.

“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

And we can also find Democratic Senator and Obama Surrogate Tom Harkin attempting to directly undermine McCain on the basis of his military background:

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is catching grief for suggesting John McCain’s family history of military service makes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Harkin, who has a history of embellishing his own military record, told Iowa reporters last week that McCain’s background as the son and grandson of Navy admirals creates a “dangerous” situation because he can only view the world through the prism of the military.

“He has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Harkin said, according to The Des Moines Register. “I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

The paper also quotes Iowa’s junior senator telling reporters, “It’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

There is clearly a continuing campaign trend going on here. Each of the attacks is aimed at a particular facet to undermine McCain on what ought to be his greatest strength.

Harkin suggests that McCain is so steeped in the military worldview that his judgment as a civilian Commander-in-Chief should be questioned. Harkin comes right out and calls McCain’s military background “dangerous.” Rockefeller cuts down McCain – a Navy aviator and fighter pilot who was shot down in Vietnam – as some kind of robotic high-altitude push-button killer who couldn’t care less about human life. And now we have Wesley Clark suggesting that getting shot down and ending up being tortured for 5 1/2 years doesn’t really amount to squat, and that his command of the Navy’s largest aviation squadron doesn’t amount to real leadership.

And yes – although I will not link to that kind of crap – I also found attacks directed at McCain’s military career that suggested that he attained his success because of his Navy admiral father, and that he cooperated with the North Vietnamese Army interrogators.

So Obama surrogates have left no stone unturned in attempting to undermine, throw dirt at, discredit, and insult John McCain’s war record and military career.

Now, I’m sure that liberals will point to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and argue, “Republicans did the same thing to John Kerry!”

Well, no, they didn’t. The Swift Boat Veterans were just that – veterans. They served with John Kerry. And they responded to what they believed were distortions, exaggerations, and flat-out-lies by a man who had outraged them by turning on American servicemen and accusing them of war crimes during a career as a war protester that was actually longer than his career as a Navy officer. The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of the men who served with John Kerry had a very different view of the man than the John Kerry (who put himself up for all his decorations) had of himself.

A Washington Post story on the Swift Boat episode by Michael Dobbs does a pretty fair job of sorting out the convoluted history and the claims and counter claims.

In any event, you don’t have a case of prominent Republicans attacking John Kerry’s war record and service the way you have of prominent Democrats doing such to John McCain. And, in order for the Obama surrogates “Swift Boating” of McCain to in ANY way be parallel to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “Swift Boating” of John Kerry, you would have to have a similar overwhelming majority of men who actually served with – and rotted with in the Hanoi Hilton – John McCain. Do we have any such? Not even close.

While John Kerry couldn’t wait to mention what he hero he was and brought his “band of brothers” with him on the campaign trail to sing his praises, “John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam.”

But at least one man – who’s reputation is unimpeachable, has spoken out:

John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam, but one of his cell mates at the Hanoi Hilton on Thursday described some of the conditions and character traits that earned McCain the commendations he received for his war service.

Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals. A living legend, Day was blown out of the sky two months to the day before the North Vietnamese shot down a propaganda prize, whose father and grandfather were renowned American admirals.

One of those 70 medals is the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I’ll take Bud Day’s account on John McCain over any other, thank you very much.

Another, more detailed account on John McCain’s military career, is found in an LA Times story.  You’ve got to figure that the Los Angeles Times – which is decidedly leftist in its orientation – would have dug up whatever dirt they could have.

The story dings McCain wherever possible on minor points, but it begins this way:

THE POST-POW YEARS: FIRST OF TWO PARTS — When John McCain limped home from a Hanoi prison camp in 1973 with a badly injured knee that he could not bend, Navy doctors gave him the bad news: His 15-year career as a jet pilot was over. He would never fly again.

But McCain surprised his doctors by making a dramatic comeback. With a ferocious determination to fly again and a tough physical therapy regimen, he got his wings back and not long after was awarded command of the Navy’s largest aviation squadron, VA-174, at Cecil Field in Florida. Blue-chip connections in the Nixon administration helped.

These days, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is asked about his qualifications to lead and manage, he points to his command of that squadron as proof he has the right stuff to be president.

“I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy, not for profit, but for patriotism,” McCain said at a candidate forum in New Hampshire. “I’m proud of that record of leadership.”

McCain’s bravery during his 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war is a well-told story. But how he regained his career after the Vietnam War has received less attention in his autobiography and other writings about his life.

A review of Navy records and interviews with more than a dozen of his former colleagues paint a picture of a commander who was lionized by his troops as a war hero and respected by aviators as a fair and effective manager. He had rugged good looks and a common touch, and was fiercely loyal to those who worked for him, his former colleagues say.

There is no question: John McCain is a legitimate war hero.  He suffered for his country as few men have suffered.  And in his determination to return from trauma and injury to continue to serve his question leave no question as to his character and courage.  Anyone who attempts to undermine such a man’s military record undermines himself.  But there is little question now that Democrats and Barack Obama surrogates are out there doing everything they can to do just that.

And John McCain’s record – when compared to Barack Obama’s complete lack of a record – speaks for itself.  John McCain’s service qualifies him as Commander-in-Chief.  He has executive level leadership experience that Barack Obama clearly lacks.  And John McCain’s lengthy career in the Senate likewise serves to further underscore the fact that one man has far more experience and credibility to serve as President than does Barack Obama.

Wesley Clark, Jay Rockefeller, and Tom Harkin’s attempts to undermine a genuine hero are genuinely despicable.  And – when three Barack Obama surrogates come trickling out to attack McCain – it is more than worth asking as to what the Obama campaign’s role has been in this campaign to question, attack, and trivialize a clearly exemplary military career.