Posts Tagged ‘pandering’

Democrats Stuck Between Crazy and Pandering on Domestic Oil

August 4, 2008

As George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi virtually the same question over and over again – and as Pelosi provided one disingenuous non sequitur after another – Stephanopoulos increasingly began to look as if he had just stepped in something that really stank.

Here’s a partial transcript of the encounter from the August 3, 2008 This Week:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You’ve been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won’t you permit a straight up or down vote?

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We’re sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won’t have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that’s part of an energy package, we’re talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won’t work and mislead the American people as to thinking it’s going to reduce the price at the pump, I’m just not going to be a part of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can’t be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He’s talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.

PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let’s step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they’re saying is let’s have more of the same. Let’s have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don’t really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we’re saying, free the oil. Use it, don’t lose it. There’s 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they’re permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?

PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?

PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That’s what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on —

PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don’t lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We’ve talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn’t be amended with a drilling proposal.

PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It’s not to use a tactic of one — one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that’s cheaper, better for the environment —

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book “A New Direction for America,” let me show our viewers, you said that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can’t they have a vote?

PELOSI: They’ll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It’s simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.

PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let’s look at all of the options. Let’s compare them. And let’s see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them —

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I’m saying to you is, as far as I’m concerned, unless there is something that — you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I’m not giving the gavel — I’m not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you’re not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we’re spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?

PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don’t you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don’t want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they’re allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it’s drill, drill, drill, drill and we’re going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we’re going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.

Speaker Pelosi has engaged in every form of partisan gamesmanship in order to block Republicans from even having a debate over drilling measures. Apparently, that qualifies as “open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives” in the Nancy Pelosi dictatorship.

According to a poll, 73% of Americans favored offshore drilling as of June 2008.

In PelosiLand, that kind of demand from the American people calls for only one thing: a five week vacation.

But Republicans aren’t having any of it:

House Republicans will be back on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives again Monday to continue the unprecedented protest that began last Friday, when dozens of Republicans joined hundreds of American citizens on the House floor to protest Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) decision to send Congress home for the rest of the summer without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and move America toward energy independence.

President Bush doesn’t mind letting Democrats twist in the wind for the next five weeks while Americans become angrier and angrier.

Barack Obama reversed his position (what else is new?) against opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide immediate price relief on gas prices. He had earlier said that the Strategic Reserves should only be tapped in the event of an emergency. Apparently a nine point drop in the polls over the course of a single week qualifies as an emergency where crippling $4 plus gasoline does not. Obama is hoping that taking 70 million barrels from the Reserve would reduce the price just long enough to keep the oil issue at bay until after the election.

Obama does not seem to want to take part in Nancy Pelosi’s (Captain KoolAid’s) suicide pact with the environmentalist groups. He is clearly beginning to hedge his position on offshore drilling. But we can’t depend upon this serial pandering flip flopper to follow through with whatever promises he makes any more than we can depend upon Nancy Pelosi’s mental health.

The Democrat Party finds itself stuck between a Crazy and a Panderer.

Point And Laugh At Democrats, One Idiot At A Time

August 4, 2008

We should all be pointing and laughing at 2004 Democratic nominee for president Senator John Kerry.

Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Kerry said:

SEN. KERRY: Well, John McCain was wrong about Iraq. He was wrong about why we ought to go there. He bought into a whole liberation theology about the Middle East with Paul Wolfowitz and others. It’s wrong. He was wrong about oil paying for the war. He was wrong about our being greeted as, as, you know, as liberation leaders.

Well, first of all, John Kerry voted the same way on the Iraq war as John McCain: they both voted for it. The fact that John Kerry is a “I-voted-for-that-bill-before-I voted-against-it“-style pandering flip-flopping nincompoop is rather relevant here: when a candidate takes all possible sides of an issue, he can bi-laterally pander in whichever direction the political winds blow. It’s a tactic that Barack Obama has grabbed hold of and run down the field with. Obama has literally said the complete opposite thing from what he’d earlier said so many times that some conservatives think its a deliberate strategy.  The most recent example of this is his flip flop on offshore drilling (apparently, a 9 point drop in the polls over a single week qualifies as an emergency in a way that $4 plus for a gallon of gasoline doesn’t).

The only difference between Kerry’s and McCain’s Iraq stance is that the latter had the courage and integrity to stand behind his commitment, while the former played politics in a contemptible and frankly cowardly manner.

But the part of Kerry’s statement that really got me laughing was his “John McCain bought into a whole liberation theology” quip.

Unless you are a patent idiot with the IQ of a rock, you ought to know that it is Barack Obama – and most certainly NOT John McCain – who is the poster child for “liberation theology.”

Liberation theology is a system invented by Marxist-Catholics in early 1970’s Nicaragua in order to confuse the population of an overwhelmingly Catholic country to support their communist insurgency effort. It basically is a candy coating of Christianity over a hard kernel of Marxism, and views Christianity through Marxist ideology.

It is important to point out that it was BARACK OBAMA – and (again) NOT John McCain – who spent 23 years in a radical church that indoctrinated its members in liberation theology.

So let’s be crystal clear who bought into liberation theology and who didn’t.

Finally – because three idiotic points in a single short paragraph is funnier than two – Kerry is wrong about Iraq: we WERE initially greeted as liberators (I presume that’s what Kerry intended in calling us “liberation leaders”):

Many residents of Baghdad, which is faring better than many of the provinces under occupation, cheered the U.S.-led coalition for delivering their hated former leader to face justice. Some broke down in tears, overcome with emotion and the idea that a future in freedom and democracy had just become more likely.

From the traffic snarls that paralyzed central Baghdad for hours after the announcement of Hussein’s capture to the celebratory gunfire that rained falling bullets on the population, the capital was a caldron of emotions.

The Iraqi people only became embittered as they realized that there were not enough American troops to maintain order against a terrorist enemy determined to bring chaos. They felt that America had left them defenseless and had a moral duty to protect them.  And that’s why John McCain – who had called for more American troops to be present from the very outset, understood that we needed “the surge.” Now most Iraqis are cheering us again.

So please join me in laughing at the pandering, flip-flopping tripe from 2004’s pandering, flip-flopping Democrat nominee on behalf of 2008’s pandering, flip-flopping Democrat nominee.

Democrats Demagogue and Lie About Oil – As Usual

July 29, 2008

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday as his Democrats failed to move their energy bill:

They’ve come up with the most unbelievable dodge that I can remember. They said, ‘We’re not going to do anything on speculation because it’s no longer important,’ even though it’s part of their bill.

But that’s a bald faced lie, and he knows it.

Republicans have repeatedly said they were willing to deal on speculation, and alternative energy, and other things the Democrats want. But they insist that drilling on federal lands – which is now off limits on and off shore because of Democrats – be part of any package they will support. As usual, Democrats prove themselves to be dishonest manipulators rather than straight dealers.

You want another example of Democrats’ bald faced lies – again from the top Democrat in the Senate? Speaking again about speculation (i.e. the oil futures market), Reid said:

Something that will lower prices by 20-50%. And I think that, uh, one of the reasons the price of oil has gone down… you’ll note that it has gone down since we started, introduced, since we introduced our legislation dealing with speculation.

No it isn’t, and he knows it. On July 14, President Bush ended the executive ban on offshore drilling. The very next day saw the price of oil take the biggest drop in 17 years.

Within two days of Bush’s signing the executive order, the price of oil dropped from nearly $145 a barrel to $130.73 a barrel. And within four days, it had dropped to $128.88. And Harry Reid wants to take credit for this drop in price with his incredibly airheaded speculation bill that never really had a chance of overcoming a filibuster to begin with?

In the House, Democrats are putting the energy bill on the “suspension calender” in a move that will require a 2/3 majority to pass any legislation, but which prevents the Republicans from adding ANY amendments to allow for drilling on federal lands or contribute in any way.

Democrats are so paranoid that a drilling amendment might be introduced that they would rather scuttle any meaningful vote whatsoever.

Why did President Bush lift the ban?:

The White House announced today that President Bush will lift an executive order banning offshore oil drilling, a move aimed at stepping up pressure on Congress to end the prohibition it imposed in 1981.

The futures market reduced the price of oil because they saw the very real possibility that the American political system might finally get itself in gear to increase the supply of oil. Increased supplies lower prices. It’s as simple as that.

It is just like the Democrat Party to do everything possible to cause the problem for restricting the oil supply, and then try to claim credit for lowering prices. They are the worst kind of backstabbing liars you could possibly ever deal with.

To add to the sheer insanity of the Democrat’s position on energy, Sen. Charles Schumer said the same day:

The bottom line is very simple. We Democrats believe in the future when it comes to energy policy. We believe in alternative energy, we believe we have to wean ourselves away from oil and dependency from people like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Putin. And they want to throw themselves right into their owns because big oil wants it. So the equations is simple. The Republicans equal big oil and the past. They do what big oil wants. We democrats represent alternatives weaning ourselves away from oil and the future.

So Democrats state that they have no intention of doing anything to increase the supply of oil or doing anything meaningful to reduce the cost even as they blame the Republicans who ARE trying to increase the oil supply.

Or to put it another way, how on earth can Democrats be both for oil and against oil at the same time?

And pandering demagogue that Schumer is, he labels Republicans as stooges of the oil companies which he and other Democrats have repeatedly demonized.

Oil companies certainly have their flaws. But they have one essential virtue: they produce oil. And in demonizing oil companies, Democrats have long-since crossed the line into demonizing the oil that these companies produce.

Or, to put it in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s words:

“Those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is, coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, its Global Warming, its ruining our Country, its ruining our World.”

Democrats are clearly opposed to oil. And that’s why the supplies are so low and the prices are so high.

You just remember something. Right now we are dependent upon oil. That is why Al Gore keeps flying his fuel-gobbling private jets and getting himself ferried around in gas-guzzling convoys of SUVs. Oil is what we have, and it is very difficult to go without it – even for the hypocrites who tell everyone else to do so.

Democrats like Schumer and Reid are not just part of the problem – they ARE THE PROBLEM. Because of Democrats, we are doing nothing to tap our own massive energy resources. Because of Democrats, we are therefore forced to go to the very dictators that Schumer named and give them $700 billion a year for something we could be producing ourselves.

We can either go on listening to one stupid self-serving lie and excuse after another, or we can vote these fools out and elect men and women who will allow this country to provide itself with the energy we need.

Barack Obama Even Cuts and Runs From His Own Positions

July 20, 2008

In a HIGHLY favorable piece from a far-left liberal newspaper (just consider the title: “Obama stance on Iraq Shows Evolving View“!!!), Barack Obama is nevertheless revealed to have simply been all over the place regarding Iraq. A much tougher – and much more substantial – piece shows just how way, way, WAAAAY all over the place Obama has been regarding Iraq:

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal.

Is that what a president does? Does he waffle this way, then that, depending on the frequent shifts of the political breezes? Or is a president – and anyone who wants to become president – forced to carefully decide what needs to be done, and then commit himself (just as he commits his troops)?

Oh, things are going well, so I’m committed. Oh, we’re having a few setbacks, so I demand a withdrawal. Oh, things are better now, so I’ll “refine” my policy. Oh, my left-wing base is turning on me, so I’ll recommit myself to my previous withdrawal policy.”

Could a president send troops, change his mind and withdraw them, change his mind again and increase their number form when he withdrew them before, and then decide that he shouldn’t have sent them after all and withdrawn them again – all within the span of about 2 1/2 years?

Conservative critics have pounced all over Obama:

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

Well, if that’s true (and you’re not a rank, hypocritical liar without shame who plays politics even when men’s lives hang in the balance), then why did you announce your rigid commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal BEFORE you went to Iraq and actually listened to those commanders?  The reality is, you’re not going to listen to them at all – just as you’ve NEVER listened to them.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Obama would renege on his Iraq policy – which is exactly what he tried to do until his liberal base erupted in outrage over the reversal.

The man is a veritable bastion of courage and integrity.

Barack Obama has been in favor of a timetable for withdraw since late 2005. What would have happened to Iraq had Barack Obama been our president? If we had pulled out of the country when Obama said we should (depending, of course, on how Obama felt about the war that day), a too-weak and too-unstable Iraq would have almost certainly descended into chaos, become a terrorist stronghold, and forced us to invade for yet a third time.

In January of 2007, John McCain proposed a troop surge in Iraq, and Barack Obama opposed it:

(CBS) Sen. John McCain supports President George Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, while his fellow Senator, and likely opponent in the 2008 race for the White House, Barack Obama would rather see a “surge in diplomacy.”

A showdown between Congress and the president looms after President Bush said he would send 21,000 more American troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the plan.

Obama pursued a plan of action that would have done NOTHING as Iraq began to stumble into chaos. John McCain – as the article acknowledges – took an “overwhelmingly” unpopular stance and supported a policy that WORKED. [And note the pessimistic stance liberal CBS took on the idea of the troop surge].

American military commanders are close to declaring complete victory in Iraq.

Even Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they have lost in Iraq.

The result of this success is that Obama scrubbed his earlier positions regarding the surge from his website. That’s “change” for you: no major political candidate in American history has ever been so completely disingenuous regarding his positions.

As an Associate Press article by Nedra Pickler put it:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

By the time Obama staffers got through editing Obama’s previous positions:

Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one — “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

That’s right: “judgment you can trust.” You can trust a man who takes every position under the sun depending on his political expediency, plays politics when soldiers’ lives are on the line, scrubs his own website of his previous erroneous positions, and then blithely pretends he’s had the same position all along.

As Barack Obama launches his foreign visit accompanied by the in-the-tank anchors from the in-the-tank networks and all the media fanfare they can produce, the narrative will be that Obama is right about the timetable for withdrawal.

But the only reason we can reasonably talk about a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq is because better and more courageous men were in charge – and Barack Obama was not.

As you listen to the in-the-tank media hype for Obama, don’t forget that.

Obama has repeatedly cut and run from his own positions: from dismissing the wearing of flag pins to wearing them constantly; from publicly vowing that he could never denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright any more than he could denounce his own grandmother to publicly denouncing Jeremiah Wright; from filling out questionnaires to denying that he filled out the answers on the questionnaires; from being an opponent of free trade to being a supporter of free trade; from telling a Jewish audience that he supported Jerusalem as the eternal capital of a Jewish state to telling a group of Palestinians that he was open to negotiating the status of Jerusalem; from claiming that Iran was not a serious threat to claiming that Iran represents a serious threat; from vowing to accept public financing to refusing to accept public financing; from supporting the Washington D.C. ban on handguns to supporting the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns; from swearing he would filibuster any FISA bill that did not allow lawsuits against telecoms to voting for a FISA bill that didn’t include any provisions to punish telecoms; from vowing to end the Iraq war in 2009 to saying he would refine his position to listen to military commanders to saying he would end the war in Iraq irregardless of the commanders.

The liberal editorial board of the New York Times has recognized that Barack Obama seemed to lack a functioning moral compass. Last week New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Barack Obama has no moral compass whatsoever. He ended his piece by saying:

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Don’t forget that Barack Obama is a pandering, waffling, flip flopping liberal who doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions.

Increasingly even liberals are recognizing that Barack Obama is simply not fit to lead.