Home foreclosures are skyrocketing. People are struggling, they are suffering, they continue to lose their homes, and their jobs. The Gulf area has been particularly hard hit, as one can imagine, for an area that depends on fishing and tourism.

Which makes this piece of information all the more maddening.

As you most likely know, the Obamas have been on vacation this weekend. No, no, not to the Gulf Coast, despite both Obamas suggesting regular Americans should go there. No, they went to Maine. But they were not the only ones who went to Maine. Their dog, Bo, also went to Maine. On his own plane. I kid you not (H/t to my friend, Nunly, for providing this link).

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported in the local paper there:

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. and the president’s personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci.[snip] (Baldacci is the governor of Maine.)

Wait – are we being punked? Does Ashton Kutcher own this newspaper or something? How else to explain flying a dog on his OWN jet with a few staffers, including Obama’s personal aide, Reggie Love? Why were they not both with the Obamas?? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. As an animal lover, if I am taking my animals somewhere with me, then they are WITH me. I know these jets had to be smaller than AF 1, but for heavens sake, it isn’t like Bo is some Bull Mastiff or something. Sheesh.

And that makes the following product all the more timely. This video has been cropping up all over the internet this weekend, and for good reason. I consider this a PSA, though the disclaimer is I/we do not endorse or promote any sales of this item. This is purely for entertainment value. And entertaining it is:

I love that it will also remove Obama Bumper Stickers from a Prius. Too funny. And I have to say, I have noticed a lot fewer Obama stickers over the past few months, so clearly there is a market (again, not promoting the product or sales thereof).

After this most recent display of the complete and utter out of touch mentality of the Obamas – both of them – I am guessing I will see fewer Bumper Stickers still. At least, I hope I will. Just another indicator that people are finally coming to their senses in this country, and not a minute too late.

Come on, November…

Oh, goody. A commission. That should do the trick for the oil spill.

By the way, did Obama come mighty close to plagiarizing Bush II? And Bush II Clinton? Bush I? Carter? And on and on and on? Amazing to see how incredibly similar each one of their speeches was, wasn’t it? And to be reminded that Tricky Dick is the one who gave us the EPA, Clean Water Act, and Marine Mammal Act. That is pretty amazing, really. I am sure if I ever knew it, I forgot it, or Watergate pushed it right out of my head…

And what does Obama want to do that is comparable to Nixon’s accomplishments? Pass “Cap and Trade,” which will necessarily raise costs. Check that, will make rates “Skyrocket,” according to Obama. Don’t believe me? Take a listen:

Just in case you missed it, or want to read along, here is what Obama said:

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.

Yep – and that is just what Cap and Trade will do – make our energy costs skyrocket. According to Obama, it will be almost $1,800 per household a year in additional costs if Cap and Trade passes. You can go with that number if you want, but all I can say is one word: Obamacare. In other words, what Obama says it will cost is much less what it will actually cost. The Weekly Standard says it will cost more like $3,100 per household a year. The bottom line is, it will cost each one of us more, on top of all of the other elevated taxes with which we are being hit (in my county, real estate taxes are going up this year again, the energy company, initially looking for a 10% increase, are backing off that number after people went ballistic and is now going for a total around 7% for the year). If you want to find out what Obama’s Cap and Trade will mean for your wallet, you can use this calculator.

The bottom line is, it’s gonna cost us. Each and every one of us will be paying more. And taxes will be going up even more at the end of 2010 when the Bush tax cuts expire. Oh, yippee.

By the way, since we are talking about Obama’s big plans for Energy Independence and all, what the hell happened to the 5 million green jobs campaign promise (that he seemed to have “borrowed” lock, stock, and barrel from Hillary Clinton)? I’m just wondering since unemployment continues to rise, with staggering numbers of Americans already unemployed or underemployed, so where are the jobs? Wouldn’t THAT be a way to help us – finally – to become more “energy independent”? Put some of the stimulus money that is left over into actual job creation what would also help the planet?

Well, I am not surprised that Obama gives more lip service to programs than action, or calls for a “war” using commissions instead of plans, or has failed to promote “green-collar” jobs. No surprise to me at all. After seeing The Daily Show clip above, I guess what SHOULD surprise me is ANY president who is actually going to make changes in this area.

What a mess we have made of this planet, and continue to make, all political posturing and arm twisting aside. The bottom line is, we have made a huge mess, culminating in the Gulf of Mexico gusher now. So here’s a question: if this kind of crisis doesn’t get us to move away from responding politically and just doing what is right (like getting more countries involved), what will? As the marine life continues to suffer, moving closer to shore to get away from the oil, as food sources suffer, and jobs are lost, what, WHAT, will finally get us to just do what is right, politics be damned?

I’d sure like to know. Wouldn’t you?

Actually, come to think of it, there is a connection between the BP oil crisis and one major issue in DC, the Obamacare program. That connection is – wait for it – labor unions.

Yep, Obama still refuses to waive the Jones Act, which would allow foreign ships and oil skimmers to come in so as not to upset the labor unions. The oil continues to gush from the earth’s surface, harming our marine life, our ocean, and too many people’s livelihoods at a time when jobs are already hard enough to come by (newest unemployment data for today skyrocketed to 472,000 jobless claims this week).

Add to that the moratorium Obama put on deepwater drilling, despite Salazar’s advisers advising against the moratorium, and many more people will be struggling before too long, especially in the Gulf. Like they need any more hardship. Obama even admitted as much, yet he is determined to go forward with his plan, halting any more drilling.

But how are the unions related to Obamacare promises that our health care, if we have it, will remain unchanged? Well, as it turns out – SURPRISE – most of us WILL have our current health care changed by Obamacare. Which group will not? You know the answer, labor unions:

That’s right, unions will be grandfathered in as this article highlights, “New Rules Could Make 66 Percent Of Employer Plans Lose ‘Grandfathered’ Status.” Gee, none of us who were following this massive takeover saw that coming, did we? Oh, right – we DID, and were told we were just haters for it. Well, we’re hating now:

New rules from the Obama administration that regulate health care plans that existed before the reform bill was passed highlight the difficulty the administration faces in both reforming the system and allowing people to keep the plans they like.

Under new regulations issued Monday, anywhere from 39 percent to 66 percent of employer plans will lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013, according to estimates included with the rules.

For plans that do not fall under the grandfathered status, employers would have to find a plan that complies with the health care bill passed March 23. Whether or not costs for the new plans will be less than grandfathered plans has yet to be seen.

Small businesses would be harder hit than large employers, losing grandfathered status for as few as 49 percent and as many as 80 percent of plans. Employers may keep their plan if it does not raise its prices beyond “reasonable changes” and if it does not cut substantially cut benefits for a particular condition.

Oh, there’s a big surprise. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy, are going to be taking the biggest hit here. Golly, too bad no one said anything about this before. That’s snark, just in case you missed it. Hell to the yes we were saying it. Again, we were roundly discounted. How many times do I have to say this? We were RIGHT:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated a saying that President Obama said many times during the health care debate: “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it,” Sebelius said at a press conference Tuesday.

But experts say the new regulations reflect the limits to which that promise can be kept.

“Given the direction that President Obama wanted to go with health care, his promise that people could keep their existing plans was always a dicey one,” said Tevi Troy, former HHS deputy secretary under President Bush and visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

The administration said that it would “take into account reasonable changes” that insurers routinely make in response to changes in cost and availability but would not outline details about what “reasonable changes” might be.

The regulations stipulate that insurers may make changes to their plans, but only to increase benefits or adapt to consumer protections outlined in the health care bill.

“They give all Americans with health insurance some important protections this year and create a path to the consumer-friendly health insurance marketplace of the future,” Sebelius said.

The new rules mandate that new individuals may not be added to grandfathered health plans after a business merger or restructuring so that grandfather status is not traded as a commodity. Thus companies will likely have employees with two different types of health care coverage, if the companies stay with their current plan.

Troy anticipates that insurance companies will try to freeze their plans to retain their grandfathered status for as long as possible.

“Freezing is not sustainable,” Troy told the Daily Caller. “The majority of plans will lose their grandfathered status in relatively short order, which I suspect was the unstated intent of both the legislators and the regulators.”

Here’s the bottom line. MANY of us knew this was going to happen. Many of us knew this was a hugely flawed bill from the get-go, not the least because the vast majority of the people voting on it hadn’t read the damn thing. With its jumping off point being big giveaways to Big Pharma, it could only go downhill from there, and did.

At what point do the people who buy every single word coming out of Obama’s mouth finally accept that they are being had? How many times must we say, “We told you so” before they will remove their blinders, their rose-colored glasses, or whatever it is that is keeping them from seeing the truth of who this man is? Despite his strong words, he is selling out the Gulf to the unions. Despite his claims to the contrary, those of us not in unions are likely to be screwed when it comes to health care, while the only ones NOT feeling the pain will be the unions.

Obama is not working in OUR best interest, but in the UNION’S best interest. As I have said before, they are sure getting their money’s worth with him. And what are we getting? Oh, you know that, too – the shaft.

The May 17th NASA’s MODIS /terra satellite imagery below (h/t University of Wisconsin and NASA) shows, according to Skytruth:

The total area covered by slick and sheen, at 10,170 square miles (26,341 km2), is nearly double what it appeared to be on the May 14 radar satellite image, and is bigger than the state of Maryland…

And if that isn’t bad enough.  It also confirms that “a substantial tongue of oil has moved southeast from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and entered the Gulf of Mexico’s Loop Current.”

From Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog:

The [Loop] current flows northward into the Gulf of Mexico, then loops southeastward just south of the Florida Keys (where it is called the Florida Current), and then along the west side of the western Bahamas. Here, the waters of the Loop Current flow northward along the U.S. coast and become the Gulf Stream. Once oil gets into the Loop Current, the 1 – 2 mph speed of the current should allow the oil to travel the 500 miles to the Florida Keys in 10 – 20 days. Portions of the Loop Current flow at speed up to 4 mph, so the transport could be just 4 – 5 days. It now appears likely that the first Florida beaches to see oil from the spill will be in the Lower Florida Keys, not in the Panhandle.

And that appears to be already happening. Approximately 20 – three to eight inch “tar balls” were found at Fort Zachary Taylor and the adjacent Navy beach at Truman Annex in Key West on Monday.

On Tuesday they were sent to labs to establish if their origins is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or a passing ship.  In the mean time, the Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries continue to survey for more.

As McClatchy points out, while:

A state advisory noted that, just last year there were 681 reports of “oil and petroleum incidents along Florida’s waterways and beaches,” advising “these types of occurrences are not as unusual as one might think.”…

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said in a conference call Tuesday morning that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association was expanding its fishery closure at noon to cover 19 percent of the Gulf, or 45,728 square miles.

So where might this oil go next?

More from Dr. Masters on the Loop Current. Based on a 1-year study in the 1990s:

the greatest risk of land impacts by surface oil caught in the Loop Current is along the ocean side of the Florida Keys, and along the coast of Southeast Florida from Miami to West Palm Beach. Eddies breaking away from the Gulf Stream would also likely bring oil to northwest Cuba, the western Bahamas, and the U.S. East Coast as far north as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, though at lesser concentrations. Southwest Florida cannot rest entirely, though–the “forbidden zone” is only true for surface waters, and there is onshore flow below the surface. Since recent ship measurements have detected substantial plumes of oil beneath the surface, southwest Florida might be at risk if one of these plumes gets entrained into the Loop Current. These subsurface plumes were also detected by current probes launched into the oil spill on May 8 by one of NOAA’s hurricane hunter aircraft … There are plans for the Hurricane Hunters to go out again tomorrow and drop more probes into the spill to attempt to get a better handle on where the oil is and where the currents are taking it.

Too bad this isn’t a low budget hollywood horror flick, because then the overly obvious and absurdly faulty plotting would have made this a comic farce.   Then I’d be laughing instead of sick to my stomach when I read about Transocean distributing a $1 billion profit to shareholders, or watch  A must-see: 60 Minutes interviews Deepwater Horizon survivor Mike Williams.

____

It seems the fail safe blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, wasn’t so fail safe.  From USA Today:

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, said evidence gathered in the investigation of the spill showed that the blowout preventer apparently had been compromised by poor maintenance and other modifications.

“The safety of its entire operations rested on the performance of a leaking, modified, defective blowout preventer,” Stupak said.When crews operating underwater robots attempted to activate the blowout preventers in the days after the spill, they discovered that there was a “significant leak” of the hydraulic fluid that activated the critical device designed to shut off oil in an emergency, Stupak said.

Crews working for Cameron, which manufactured the blowout preventer, discovered the leak coming from a loose connection, Stupak said. Cameron told the committee that it did not believe that the blowout caused the leak because other connections were tight.

Another shut-off system on the device had also been modified and did not work.

“An entire day’s worth of precious time had been spent engaging rams that closed the wrong way because it was wired wrong,” Stupak said.

A host of other problems may have interferred with the emergency shut-off system, Stupak said.

At least one battery located on the device, which was on the sea floor 5,000 feet beneath the surface, was dead. That could have prevented the device from operating in an emergency.

More on the failure from McClatchy.

BP’s newly released video of the spill:

Three bills related to the spill were introduced in the Senate on Tuesday .  The first to establish a commission to investigate the spill.  The second to lift limits on punitive damages against big oil companies.  And the third to raise civil and criminal penalties associated with violating provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. From the LA Times:

…the BP Deepwater Horizon Inquiry Commission Act of 2010, cosponsored by Sens. Boxer, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would establish an independent, non-partisan commission to investigate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and provide recommendations to avoid future disasters.

… “The Big Oil Pollutant Pays Act,” cosponsored by Sens. Whitehouse, Menendez and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), would overturn the 2008 Supreme Court case Exxon Shipping Co. vs. Baker, which slashed Exxon Mobil Corp.’s punitive damages for its 1989 tanker spill. In that case, the Supreme Court held that unless Congress acted, punitive damages under maritime law had to be limited to the amount of compensatory damages assessed in a case (the damages assessed to make victims whole). The proposed bill would allow punitive damages based on all facts in a case, without regard to the amount of other damages owed.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments Act, cosponsored by Menendez and Whitehouse would raise the civil and criminal penalties associated with violating provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as well as federal Minerals Management Service and Coast Guard safety and environmental regulations promulgated under the act.

Currently, the civil penalties in the statute are capped at $20,000 per day. This bill would raise the daily civil penalty maximum to $75,000 ($150,000 per day in case of a threat of serious or irreparable harm to life or the environment). The criminal penalties in the statute are capped at $100,000 and imprisonment of not more than 10 years. The bill would raise the criminal penalty maximum to $10,000,000.

Just to give a bit of perspective on the numbers, from the Washington Post:

On Monday, BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day.

The amount of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico has been estimated at 5,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. In the first quarter, BP produced 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day worldwide — and it received $71.86 for every barrel.

BP has strong borrowing capacity, too. Analysts say it could get as much as $20 billion without exceeding its debt targets. “Even a pretty large digging into the pockets would be within our capacity to handle,” said Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman.

And for a little historical perspective, more Washington Post:

punitive damages against Exxon for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil-tanker spill were originally set at $5 billion in 1994 but were reduced on appeal. The company agreed last year to pay less than $1 billion, including interest.

Yep. That’s all folks. Punitive damages.

*Update*

On Thursday Transocean took steps to contain its financial exposure from the rig explosion and collapse, which killed 11 workers.  From The New York Times:

Transocean, based in Switzerland, filed a petition in federal court in Houston to limit its liability to $26.7 million under an 1851 liability law that was devised to protect American ship owners facing competition from foreign-flagged vessels.

In a statement, the company said it “believes this step is necessary to protect the interests of its employees, its shareholders and the company.” Transocean also said it wanted to consolidate all the lawsuits it is facing in one court, and establish a single fund from which “legitimate claims may be paid.”

Is anyone surprised?
___

It’s been a week now, and I still don’t know what those “tea bag” protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who’s going to win “American Idol.” But it wasn’t tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that’s when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

…“the conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because … well, nobody knows. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Even though they’re not quite sure what “it” is.”

Let us fast forward to his show on April 30, 2010 where he said the following in reference to the tea partiers:

“…well, you know they always say they feel like neither Party represents them. That’s how I feel this week.”

What a difference a year makes.

While his surrounding verbiage was typically tasteless, the sentiment was all too clear. The people he said he could never agree with he found a reason to agree with. Why – our horrific Gulf Coast Oil Spill:

And for those of you who can’t bear to watch him on video, Noel Sheppard provides the transcript of Maher’s remarks — sitting with none other than Mr. Leg Tingle, Chris Matthews himself:

BILL MAHER: Okay, so I mentioned in the monologue I’m a little mad this week. I usually try to hide that, but, you know, when the Teabaggers say that they feel like they have no…

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: I love the way you say that.

MAHER: What?

ROSS DOUTHAT, NEW YORK TIMES: Just trips off the tongue.

MATTHEWS: The Teabaggers.

MAHER: The Teabag, well, you know they always say they feel like neither Party represents them. That’s how I feel this week. So Teabaggers, you’re not alone. And the reason why is because yes, I’m mad at the oil company who didn’t obviously build their rig well enough. I’m mad at America in general because we should have gotten off the oil tit starting in the ’70s. I’m mad at the people who go, “Drill, baby, drill.” And by the way, they should turn up on the Gulf Coast and start cleaning up the birds with their “Drill, baby, drill” t-shirts. But I’ll tell you who I’m really mad at which is Barack Obama. Couple of weeks ago, the President, our President said, “It turns out the oil rigs today generally don’t cause oil spills. They are technologically very advanced.” Now if, if I was quoting George Bush, this crowd would be laughing in hysterics.

LAURA TYSON, ECONOMIST AND FORMER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes they would.

MAHER: So, why isn’t Barack Obama getting more sh*t for this? I think he should.

(Applause.)

Yes. The audience applauded.

Bill Maher is taking our President to task on something? He dipped his little toe into these waters a few months ago, but ever so gently. Not sounding so gentle now, however.

Then again, a friend called to tell me Maher defended Hillary on his show several weeks back. I’ll have to take his word for it because I will never watch Maher’s show again. This is what Maher had to say about Hillary two short years ago (one among many lovely remarks):

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt.”

Gee, Bill, next time perhaps you’ll think before disrespecting one candidate while fawning over another or condemning a movement before you take five minutes of your time to understand who they are or what they are about.

Even though Maher still insists on insulting them with the homophobic “tea baggers” slur, it is clear he does understand what they are railing against. Or does this mean Bill is a racist now, too?

H/T to LisaB for alerting us to former Congressman Mickey Edwards’ piece in The Atlantic offering a polite but succinct takedown on Maher. Edwards was in Congress for 16 years and also taught at Princeton and Harvard. Apparently, This Week in ABC thought to elevate Maher to sitting at the round table with George Will, Al Sharpton. Katrina Van Den Heuvel and Matthew Dowd as they discussed the controversial new AZ immigration law. Edwards contended that both sides managed to discuss the difficult choice between necessary security and the profiling issue with civility — except…:

Then there was Mr. Bill Maher, whose three principal contributions were to hail Brazil’s having stopped its use of oil as an energy source for vehicles (incorrect), his observation that Republicans are racists, and his subsequent refinement of that observation: he only meant to say that if you’re a racist, you’re probably a Republican.

I had actually been watching something else on television (a tribute to Ella Fitzgerald), but switched in time to watch Mr. Maher’s performance. I’m glad I did. Had I not done so, I would have continued to be among those blissfully unaware of what a dolt he is, of how hateful and venomous and destructive of civility and intelligent discourse he is.

And so the villain of this piece is? Not Mr. Maher: he is, sadly, what he is, and that is all he is, and (my heart goes out to him) that is probably all he will ever be; one can only do one’s best with whatever limited capacities one has. But George Will, Matthew Dowd, Al Sharpton, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, agree with them or not, have a proper place at the grown-up table; one can only wonder what the producers at ABC were thinking when they moved this character to a table at which the likes of George Stephanopoulos, Cokie Roberts, Cokie Roberts, and Sam Donaldson once sat.

It is good to draw attention to Maher if only to point out that his show is what passes on certain fronts as educated political discourse. It is often far less than that.

This serves as yet one more example that contempt prior to examination is not a good thing. Whether one agrees with the new AZ law or not, it is clear that serious solutions are required by the federal government, notably AWOL on this issue in this and the last Administration.

Likewise, whether one agrees with the agenda of the Tea Party movement, it is clear that the rank and file are not being represented by those in power.

It was Maher who years ago complained that the vertical ownership of Uber-corporations was strangling this country — their deep pockets holding enormous influence over our elected officials — ensuring that neither Party is doing the peoples’ business. He was right. Tea Party anger over that very situation is one of the forces driving this movement.

How odd that Maher never realized the very sentiments he voiced were at the root of the movement he saw fit to condemn this past year.

Though he purports to be a comedian, he clearly fancies himself as more than that. Still, Maher is like 90% of the pundits out there — trying to stay ahead of the curve and keep themselves relevant by insulting those it seems cool to insult. By trading whatever common sense he might have to offer on a given subject for the easy takedown, preferring to stay au courant rather than honest — he lowers the level of discourse rather than elevating it. He also see to it that his audience — and he does have a bully pulpit of his own — does not get both sides of the story, only more demagoguery.

Imagine what might have happened if Maher and people like him had stopped to understand the true grievances of tea party activists last year. Such a pulpit might have brought both sides together to fight a health care bill that causes more harm than good, sending Congress back to the drawing board until they had effective health care reform to offer, rather than insurance payoffs. By Maher employing the typical, and hateful, “us vs. them” attitude to get ratings and please his flock he becomes part of the very problem he spends his show railing against. He also ensures that our President (any president, regardless of Party) will never get sh*t when they deserve it because we are too distracted fighting each other to hold our elected officials accountable.

We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street’s money with it, and the government can’t really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what’s in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed “dot-gov.”

It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, and the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Ms. Noonan also states:

The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn’t.

If Jane Hamsher is to be believed, many on the left aren’t thrilled either.

Of course, the White House is going to go after Social Security again. It’s the pot of gold at the end of Wall Street’s rainbow, and they desperately want that injection of cash which could keep their giant ponzi scheme from exploding. . . for a little while.

Lucky for them, Obama has successfully dismantled the opposition that kept George Bush from privatizing Social Security at Wall Street’s behest only a few years ago. Did anybody fail to get that message when majority whip Dick Durbin yesterday told “bleeding heart liberals” that they need to be willing to accept cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for the economic well-being of the nation?

…Just as the choice groups sat on their hands for the Nelson amendment in the health care bill, just like the Sierra Club remains mute in the wake of an oil spill the size of Delaware, there will be nothing more than progressive window-dressing in opposition to cutting Social Security benefits this time around. Any of these groups utter so much as a whimper in response to Durbin’s very alarming statement yesterday? Nada. Zip. Zero.

The idea that the right is more “authoritarian” and top-down than the left is absurd.

Good point, Ms. Hamsher – I don’t much trust what’s coming out of either side.

Ms. Noonan then discusses the much criticized law that Arizona’s passed out of frustration to control its borders:

It is doing this because the federal government won’t, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts…

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

[snip]

The American president has the power to control America’s borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it’s at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

Both Hamsher and Noonan make clear that we don’t have much by way of allies in the persons of our government officials. It is apparent to anyone half awake that Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, capture an issue in furtherance of their careers and little else. There is a line in the movie “Syriana” –

“We want to give the appearance of doing our due diligence. But we don’t want to do our due diligence.”

Noonan uses the issue of government’s failure to secure the border to the same effect in her piece as Hamsher uses “the giant flaming ball of oil being pushed straight for the coasts of Alabama and Mississippi” that “[m]ight be the worst environmental event in decades” in hers – as examples of government ineffectiveness due as the result of succumbing to interest groups rather than doing what is best for the American people.

For those of us at NoQuarter long shouting in frustration for better leadership than what was being foisted upon us all, it is ironic that Noonan may be the first major pundit to make the following observation:

I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.

Though I don’t care for her “sturdy, pantsuit” snark –she notes correctly that we feel we have no place in this new world order of the Democratic party. Perrylogan, one of the commenters to Hamsher’s piece, makes clear why:

The progressive movement died during the primaries, when Obama’s supporters started calling their fellow Democrats racists.

Amen.

In the universe of President Obama, the second “Great Uniter” in a row (George Bush II being the first), we are now more divided against ourselves than ever. It also looks as though many are feeling divided from the very people we have elected to protect our best interests.

Much of this is the result of the politics of demagoguery – served up to control the populace rather than to assist it, to divide us from each other, so we never take the time to notice we have far more in common than we realize.

All this jumble is to say that when two ladies from opposite sides of the aisle express this much anger and frustration, it is time for our politicians to wake up – lest we do figure out how to unite peacefully. Then those elitists Jane, Peggy and we all rage against might be ridden out of town on a rail.

But Obama has even bigger problems than his reversal on Offshore Drilling. And that is the recent ruling that the court has made on wiretapping. Now, MANY of us were furious with Bush for doing this, and thought it was unconstitutional. Guess what? We were right, as this NY Times article, “Court Ruling on Wiretap Is a Challenge for Obama,” spells out:

As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama declared that it was “unconstitutional and illegal” for the Bush administration to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. Many of his supporters said likewise.

But since Mr. Obama won the election, administration officials have avoided repeating that position. They have sidestepped questions about the legality of the program in Congressional testimony. And in lawsuits over the program, they followed a strategy intended to avoid ever answering the question by asking courts to dismiss the lawsuits because the litigation could reveal national security secrets.

But the ruling on Wednesday by a federal judge that one instance of such spying had been “unlawful electronic surveillance” may force onto the table a discussion of how aggressively the Obama administration should continue to defend from judicial review the contentious Bush-era counterterrorism policy.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the ruling had highlighted the “awkwardness” of the Obama administration’s ambivalent stance toward its predecessor’s surveillance program.

“They have a lot of discomfort with the legal arguments the Bush administration made, but they’ve tried to avoid having to acknowledge too publicly those differences or to air them in court,” he said.

Uh huh. Bush II, as I, and others, have written ad nauseum (honestly, I have written so many posts on the similarities and flip flops by Obama, I cannot list them all here). He was telegraphing how much he was like Bush at the same time he was demonizing him. Yet, his followers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see the comparisons.

But they are definitely there:

[snip] There are some reasons that the administration might appeal, legal specialists said. Among them, it may not want Judge Walker’s narrow interpretation of the state secrets privilege to stand because it might influence other cases, and appealing on those narrow grounds would allow the administration to still avoid engaging on whether the program was legal.

In addition, the administration may fear political attacks from the right if it agrees to pay damages to the plaintiffs, which include an Islamic charity in Oregon, Al Haramain, which the government has said had links to Al Qaeda. (The charity is defunct and its assets are frozen, however.)

But several legal specialists said that the administration may instead want to let the ruling stand. That would terminate a case that has been a political headache for the administration since the month after Mr. Obama took office, when the Justice Department’s decision to keep pressing forward with the Bush administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege in the matter created an uproar among liberals.

A decision not to appeal would also ensure that the ruling against the government went no higher than a district court judge’s decision, which — unlike one by an appeals court — would not set a binding precedent.

“This is a very hard decision for them,” said John P. Elwood, a Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration. “The thing that makes it hard to appeal is that they apparently are of two minds about it and don’t want to be pinned down on what they think of it now, but also the fact that they might end up with just as bad a precedent from the court one rung up.”

Still, if the administration lets the judgment stand, Mr. Holder — who in 2008 said Mr. Bush had authorized the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program in “direct defiance of federal law” — would be left with a ruling from a federal judge that such warrantless wiretapping by government officials was illegal. That could prompt calls to begin a criminal investigation. It is a felony to violate the surveillance law requiring warrants.

“Despite the government trying to throw up every procedural roadblock imaginable in this case, the judge has ruled that the Bush administration broke the law,” Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who is on both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, said Thursday.

And there you have it. So, now the Obushma Administration has the decision to make of appeal, or let stand the ruling:

Most of the lawsuits brought against the government over the program in the past have faltered because the plaintiffs could not prove that they were spied upon.

But Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for Al Haramain, observed Thursday that if Mr. Holder chose to open a criminal investigation, he could easily obtain all the evidence of wrongdoing he needed.

“If Holder wanted to be really aggressive, he could go into the Justice Department’s files and pick out some of the people who were wiretapped and prosecute those cases,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “But do they want to do that? No. The Obama administration made a decision a long time ago that they are not going to prosecute Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.”

Mr. Holder already faced a similar decision over whether to investigate Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who conducted harsh interrogations of detainees during the Bush years despite antitorture laws.

But Mr. Holder decided not to investigate any interrogators for conduct that at the time had been blessed as lawful by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. That office wrote similar memorandums declaring that warrantless surveillance was lawful, and Mr. Golove, the New York University law professor, said that precedent was likely to be repeated.

“I assume Holder would say there is the same rationale — if they were acting under Office of Legal Counsel authority, we’re not going to investigate them,” he said. “Does he have to announce that? I don’t know — it depends on how much political pressure is brought to bear.”

Sure will be interesting to see how Obama and Holder decide to play this off, won’t it?

At this point, I planned to grab a video on Obama’s Flip Flops, but I cannot begin to tell you how many there were at YouTube. I’m not kidding – go put it in, and you’ll get a ton of them.

But this one is pretty darn good – and it was done a year and a half ago before the election:

Just think how many more Flips and Flops Obama has made since then. His followers will shrug and say it’s different now. We know better, though. The flips and flops are mighty numerous, with the illegal wiretapping being just one. Feel free to list the many others!

Yes, Obama laid blame at the feet of just about everyone but himself last night during his SOTU. “The Buck Stops Here” moment was very short-lived, was it not? It’s Bush’s fault about the banks, even though Senator Obama voted to bail them out; it’s the Republicans fault – the minority party – that nothing can get passed in D.C., even though the Democrats had a super-majority, it is everyone’s fault but his, for whatever condition the country is in, unless it is something positive, then it is ALL him. Yes, he can walk and chew gum at the same time – woohoo!!! Let’s give him a standing ovation!! Lost jobs? Staggering deficit? Home foreclosures?? Nah, that’s not his fault.

And how about Justice Alito’s “Joe Wilson” moment, when he said, “Not true” to Obama’s claim the recent Supreme Court Decision would allow foreign dollars to influence our elections. All I gotta say is, lucky for him he isn’t from South Cackalacki, or else he would be labeled a racist. Ahem. I am sure this will be looked at from every which way in the upcoming days.

But in case you missed it, here is the moment with Justice Alito, with commentary from Peter Johnson:

Wow, that was some response from Mr. Johnson, who is, by the way, a Democrat, and who voted for Obama.

What else? Oh, yes, the whole DADT thing that Obama punted out to the Congress. That’s exactly what he did. DADT could have long ago been repealed, but yet, there it still is. I have zero patience for LGB groups who are going to be thankful for this little throwaway crumb from the table. If Obama wanted to end it, he would have. Now, just because he mentioned it, organizations like Servicemembers Legal Defense Network are all atwitter. Spare me. When Obama, and the Congress, actually DO something about it, then I’ll give them appropriate props. But until then, it’s the same-o, same-o, all talk and no action.

And how about the Republican Response? It was offered by new Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell from Richmond, in the House of Delegates. Take a look:

I have to say, this is one of the better responses I have seen from either side of the aisle (remember the incredibly painful, stiff response from then-Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius?? Oh, wow – I had such high hopes for her until her incredibly wooden performance. Watching paint dry would have been more interesting.).

UPDATED: Jon Stewart had an interesting review of the media’s coverage of the SOTU. There was one person in particular who made a rather startling statement, and not for the first time. Check it out:

Why am I not surprised?? How about you?

Up first, we have this lovely button:

For the family that prays for Obama, stays together, or something like that. Well, if what the NY Post had about Obama potentially violating the Logan Act* by attempting to delay troop withdrawal from Iraq to suit HIS political purposes is true, risking lives as a result, he’s gonna need a lot of those prayers. See, it’s illegal – some might even say TREASONOUS – for a civilian to work against a presidential administration in a foreign country. Oopsy daisy!!

Then there is this nice little bumper sticker for all you Catholics out there! You can put this right next to the sticker for your parochial school!

Oh, great! Now I know what to get my good friend, Divine Democrat! Ahem.

And finally, last but not least, there is this:

All hail, the Obama Faithful!! Oh, wait – am I misreading that? Nope, I don’t think I am. That may not be exactly what they WANTED to convey, at least consciously, but that’s about what they seem to expect from their followers – complete and utter devotion. Praise Obama – he has come to liberate us from our pesky morals, our integrity, our sense of decency and fair play! That must be the “Change” Obama promised to bring us!! Hallelujah!!

And just in case you think I am making this up, here is the letter from the Obama Camp:

Dear friends,
Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We’ll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay.

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous (sic) Affairs
Obama for America

Oh, YAY! And God-O-Meter said there will be more to come, like “Clergy for Change.” Oh, I cannot WAIT to get one of those! Actually, yes, yes I can. Many of you will like THIS one: “Pro-Israel Pro-Obama.” I wonder how HAMAS and The Nation of Islam will feel about that one…I guess Obama can ask his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, about that.

Now some of you heathens out there might be just a bit sceptical about Obama’s reaching out to the religious among us. Some of you might just be bitterly clinging to his comments about religious folk bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Oh, ye of little faith!! He cares about you, he really does. Didn’t you see the BUTTON?? Or the STICKER?? C’mon! Don’t play hard to get! Obama loves you, this I know! For his minions have bludgeoned me with that claim for weeks now! I mean – because he shows us in so many ways: FISA, public campaign funds, off-shore drilling, NAFTA, gun control…Oh, I could go on and on with all the ways Obama’s Words have touched our lives. Praise the One who can stop the waters rising, and slow their very movement! Now the Faithful may proudly display the object of their veneration right on their cars and their lapels! Will wonders never cease?!

But wait! There is one more left to see. This courtesy of my talented partner who wanted to make sure we were all represented. Here it is:

Step right up! Order yours today!!

* Text of the Logan Act: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I guess Obama’s attempt at getting Murdoch’s media to support him appear to be wasted.

From Political Wire we learn about Obama’s whining to Fox News chief Roger Ailes in a summer meeting. I guess he thought he would get the same softball treatment from Fox News that he did from CNN and MSNBC:

In Vanity Fair, Michael Wolff reports on a “secret courtesy meeting” between Sen. Barack Obama and Fox News chief Roger Ailes earlier this summer.

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome — just short of a terrorist.

“Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

Well another round won by McCain/Palin!

The New York Post had this to say in their endorsement:

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain’s lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

Big Mac Gets Big Bounce in Polls

Sarah Palin to Face the Media

Get MORE Election Coverage at NYPost.com

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located – and how to manipulate them – but he is not controlled by them.

McCain’s selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

The Post listed several good reasons to vote for McCain (Note: I don’t necessarily agree with all of them!).

There are many reasons to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Here are but a few:

* National security: The differences between McCain and Obama are especially stark.

McCain says 9/11 represented a two-decade “failure . . . to respond to . . . a [growing] global terror network.” He understood that Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror – and he urged perseverance even in the dark days that preceded the success of “the surge.”

Obama backed policies that would have abandoned Iraq to its fate, he bitterly opposed the surge, and once insisted that US forces invade Pakistan in search of Osama bin Laden – seemingly without regard for the potential consequences of attacking a nuclear-armed nation, ally or not.

Regarding a nuclear Iran, McCain has pushed for the strongest possible international sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Obama opposes sanctions.

And, when Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, threatening a return to the Cold War, McCain reacted with stern disapprobation: “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.”

Obama called for UN action – unaware, apparently, that Russia’s Security Council veto would have prevented any.

* Taxes: McCain knows that when government absorbs ever-larger shares of national income, the economy suffers.

High tax rates diminish investment, killing jobs and stunting growth.

And while Obama promises tax cuts for “95 percent” of Americans, what he actually is proposing is some $650 billion in tax-credit-driven hikes in entitlement and other spending, to be paid for with heavier imposts across the board, but especially on investment – like a sharply higher capital-gains tax.

This is bad news for the millions of ordinary Americans who own stocks, either personally or through pension funds or who plan someday to sell their homes or other real property.

McCain, wisely, vows to keep capital-gains taxes at 15 percent and to keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place – understanding that new growth will boost revenue, and promising to make up the rest with spending restraint.

And he’s called for a one-year freeze on most discretionary spending and an end to pork-barrel giveaways.

* Trade: “I object when Senator Obama and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism,” says McCain – noting that “globalization is an opportunity” for US workers. He adds that while emerging economies like those of China and India are worrisome, the answer is competition informed by education and innovation – not protectionism.

* Energy: On the economic issue most vexing Americans today – energy prices – McCain is aggressive

He is a strong convert to offshore drilling: “We have trillions of dollars’ worth of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy.”

He also strongly backs nuclear power – a carbon-free form of energy that America can produce relatively cheaply.

Obama, meanwhile, hews to the Democratic Party line on energy: no nukes, no drilling and no comprehension of the consequences of such policies.

And finally The Post finished up with this quote:

In the end, though, sound security, economic and energy policies – plus allegiance to principle – are critical to keeping America safe and strong.

On all counts, John McCain and Sarah Palin understand this – and that’s why we’re in their corner to the finish.

As for my vote I am still not certain what I will do in November, but I am carefully looking at McCain/Palin, listening to their speeches and talking points. And I am anxiously awaiting Palin’s ABC interview. Palin is a regular person like me, a working mom like I was during my Navy days, and understands special needs children, I grew up with a brother who has special needs, they are part and parcel of your moral fiber! And it turns out McCain remembers the last time he changed a diaper because he said, “There’s some experiences you never forget.”

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all – no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth – he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh – is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife – both PhDs – also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh – today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall – and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started – not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

What a difference a month makes. Right on the heels of Obama’s dead fish flop on drilling off the coast of FL (even Jeb didn’t want to do this) comes an Obama proposal to sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile.

The WaPo reported Tuesday that during a speech in MI:

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

——————————

The Obama campaign did not predict how much releasing reserves would lower gas prices. But it said prices at the pump went down more than 19 percent within two weeks when President Bill Clinton made such a move in 2000.

His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

On July 24th, USAToday reported that democrats wanted to open the reserves for just this reason.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
———————–

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.

Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed the sale because Democrats opposed offshore drilling.

Also curious is another story from USAToday on July 23rd about the airline industry supporting selling reserves.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. government should tap the national petroleum reserve to relieve ailing airlines that have been stung by soaring oil prices, the industry’s leading trade group told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“History shows us that even a temporary increase in supply will immediately lower oil prices,” James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Three major U.S. airlines reported second-quarter losses on Tuesday of more than $3.3 billion, blaming skyrocketing fuel costs.

May testified as the House is expected to vote Thursday on legislation to release millions of barrels of light sweet crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and swap it with heavy sour crude in an effort to calm the market.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserves has a website with information on current inventory here.

About the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Wikipedia)

Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m³/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a Presidential order. The Dept. of Energy says that it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.

The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to one billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (66,000 m³) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
—————–

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m³), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m³) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is “royalty-in-kind” oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties “in kind” – or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

So, what are the threads here? Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for some time over how to deal with climbing gas prices, with Republicans wanting to drill more and Democrats wanting to use the “oil piggy bank.” Now, it looks as if someone has achieved a “meeting of the minds” with Obama suddenly supporting drilling. Will Republicans suddenly support selling reserves?

We’ll have to see. Right now John McCain does not.

In addition, whether or not 70 million barrels will make a huge difference to the average consumer is a matter of debate. Although any savings is appreciated, such a sale isn’t likely to lower price all that much. Selling oil to make gas prices go down is a little like selling apple trees to lower the price of pie.

So, who benefits the most? Well, consumers who use LOTS of gas. Airlines come to mind. It might help that industry – but that’s not why the idea is being sold. It’s for the driving consumer, stupid.

Lastly, the sale would be of stockpiled “sweet crude.” Reports say this “sweet crude” would then be replaced by the “sour type” (are there crude tasters??). So, that’s not a one-for-one swap. Also, haven’t we been hearing for some time that refinery capacity is a problem and that adds to the price? Just because we could sell it, would we be able to quickly refine it?

We’d be selling the apple trees, putting twigs back in the ground, waiting on a backlogged pastry chef and hoping the pie gets cheaper.

And Obama was against it before he was for it.

So, what’s the calculation, Barack? What changed your mind? And while you talked about this in MI on the 4th, it doesn’t show up in the transcript of your speech in Ohio on the 5th.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Viewers largely thought it was NOT racist.

Read the rest ->

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

But, you say, what did those viewers think of Obama’s response to McCain’s ad?

However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.

Here’s the breakdown among whites and AAs (remember, no other ethnic/racial groups count. . . ):

Not surprisingly, the McCain ad generates significantly different perceptions along racial and ethnic lines. Most African-American voters—58%–saw the McCain ad as racist. Just 18% of white voters and 14% of all other voters shared that view.

As for Obama’s comment, 53% of white voters saw it as racist, as did 44% of African-Americans and 61% of all other voters.

It’s looking like the McCain camp called this one right. So, instead of calling this racism, I’m thinking we’ll simply hear of more “disappointment” and/or “cynicism.”

2) A poll finds Oklahoma not exactly Obama territory.

3) The WaPo tells some truth. Deborah Howell, the WaPo ombudsman, has an article saying the paper published far more pictures of Obama than of McCain. In addition, those pictures are more likely to be of Obama smiling and McCain with a serious face.

What we found: 122 photos of Obama have been published in the paper during that time to 78 for McCain, counting tiny to big. Most of those photos ran inside the paper; most on the politics page. The Page 1 photos are closer: Obama had nine to McCain’s seven. Five of Obama’s were above the fold; McCain had four. Obama also got more color photos, 72 to 49, and more large photos — mostly those that spanned three or more columns, 30 to 10.
——————————-
Ed Thiede, assistant managing editor for the news desk, said that the numbers are “eye-opening. We should be more cognizant.” Du Cille and Thiede were both surprised at the numbers. Du Cille said, “The disparity in the numbers is indeed hard to reconcile. As photojournalists, we always strive to be fair. We have tried to be balanced, but it seems that in a large operation such as ours, we need to monitor the use of political images even more closely.
———————–

Readers look at photos when they don’t read stories. But Obama leads in stories since June 4, too — 139 to 94. They were both featured in 23 stories. . .

But these kinds of discrepancies feed distrust on the part of readers, especially conservative ones, who already complain that The Post is all for Obama. Next week, I will examine the stories.

Let’s keep an eye out for this article next week. If nothing else, it should be VERY interesting.

4) Jennifer Rubin at Commentary has a very interesting take on why Obama isn’t doing better in polls. She qotes Charles Krauthammer quoting Dana Milbank, so this “presumptuous” meme is definitely making waves.

But the meat of her argument goes like this:

It is really three factors at play: Obama has gotten worse, John McCain’s campaign has gotten more aggressive in pointing out that Obama has gotten worse and Obama is no longer talking about the issues which were underpinning that huge advantage Democrats were thought to enjoy.

She adds:

It’s the last point which has liberal supporters stumped. What happened to the laser-like focus on the economy? What happened to the non-stop message that John McCain is George W. Bush’s clone? These were lost in the audacity festival in Berlin and the aftermath of the trip ( e.g. the soldier snub gaffe). But even before that, between the securing the nomination and the overseas trip, the major campaign storylines have been: Obama’s flip-flops, Wesley Clark slurring McCain, Hillary Clinton voters still upset, Obama’s repositioning (kind of ) on Iraq, the success of the surge, and the faux seal and the arrogance meme.

So Rubin says Obama isn’t driving the message. That’s assuming there is one to steer. Here at NQ we’ve said before that Obama’s policy statements have been awfully thin or clearly cribbed from other candidates. Now that’s really starting to show. When you’ve got nothing to say, it’s all about you. That can work until people begin to think the “you” ain’t so great. . .

5) Slate doesn’t like the off-shore drilling flip-flop any more than most of FL. The article calls both McCain and Obama on it, but falls a little harder on Obama for “change you can believe in.”

6) Time has a piece on “in the tank” media.

That McCain’s complaint [about Obama luv] is sometimes overstated and imprudent, however, does not mean that it is wrong. The political press corps has a problem when Jon Stewart lampoons reporters for being even more in the tank for Obama than he is.
———————–

The silver lining for McCain is that the media’s bias has sometimes backfired on liberals. . . Obama’s Reverend Wright fiasco was a case in point. Even though the two men had close ties, the press gave little scrutiny to the radical preacher for a year after Obama’s campaign began. When attention finally came, Obama gave a speech that tried to shift the focus from their relationship to the rest of the country’s racial wounds. He was rewarded with rapturous coverage. The next day, the New York Times ran a “news analysis” calling the speech “hopeful, patriotic [and] quintessentially American” and comparing him to John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. It took a few more weeks for Obama to realize that he had to take the final step and repudiate Wright.

Media bias poses only one serious danger to McCain. One of Obama’s standard tactics has been to predict that McCain would “play on our fears,” “exploit our differences” and stir up “fake controversy” to win this fall. It’s a clever move; it simultaneously paints McCain as a brute while making him think twice about hitting back–the harder McCain hits, after all, the more it will look as though he is stirring up fake controversy. Too many reporters have bought that spin, and that’s a problem. McCain doesn’t need reporters to fall out of love with Obama. But he does need to be allowed to make the case against the Democrat.

And one should be able to make a case without being called racist at every turn. Wonder if Time has read the Rasmussen poll?

7) And to the DNC rulz czars? Time to check out the undercarriage of the Obama express. No doubt you’ve heard about Obama wanting to fully seat those wayward states – Michigan and Florida – after quite the dustup earlier this year when those states’ voters were effectively disenfranchised.

Well, the caucus blog at NYT has this to say:

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s “request” to restore full voting strength to Florida and Michigan is likely to cause heartburn for party officials, who have struggled to maintain some authority over the primary calendar.

By granting Mr. Obama’s request, the party will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the calendar next time because there will be no consequences.

However, I think the blog missed the mark here:

The whole subject remains a sore point with some Clinton supporters. But Mr. Obama’s letter today seems timed to try to minimize any damage, coming almost two months after Mrs. Clinton threw her support to him and after it appears unlikely that she will be his choice for vice president.

“Timed to try to minimize any damage, coming almost two months. . .” Minimize what damage? Clueless. Just another Senator Britney opportunistic flip-flop designed to show calculation before class or integrity.

8 )George Will’s piece today has a couple of interesting bits about why Obama may be slipping.

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party’s surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming.
Will attributes at least some of the slippage to eloquence ennui. Voters are simply tired of the vaulting rhetoric.

Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, “a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.”

But Will also points out how that rhetoric helps Obama create the very image of him as self-absorbed and not really interested in America.

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs — someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as “citizen of the world” and “global citizenship.” If they meant anything in Berlin, they meant that Obama wanted Berliners to know that he is proudly cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is not, however, a political asset for American presidential candidates. Least of all is it an asset for Obama, one of whose urgent needs is to seem comfortable with America’s vibrant and very un-European patriotism, which is grounded in a sense of virtuous exceptionalism.

Will is conservative, so this column won’t get too much play. But he does make a logical argument for why Obama hasn’t “closed the deal.”

9) Fivethirtyeight, a website about polling has some notes for down-ballot Democrats.

In “Organizing Update”, fivethirtyeight covers how the political campaigns and parties are organizing offices and personnel across the states. As we’ve talked about at NQ, Obama has been taking the reins of the Democratic party by moving it to Chicago and using nearly all donations for his office run.

In Wisconsin, Obama has 15 offices open now, with 24 expected to be open by mid-August. The staffers are directly paid by Obama’s “Campaign for Change” organization. By contrast, Republicans have five party offices open that handle both McCain field work as well as the state leg. races, which somewhat dilutes the effort.

This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it’s actually a story we’re keeping an eye on. Though our idea about the timetable of campaign ramp-ups has been distorted by this nearly two-year presidential ordeal, most local races and even most congressional races are only barely beginning to coordinate their own field efforts. In this respect, it is unclear on the Obama side how the traditional coordination between presidential race field staff and downballot candidates will be carried off. The traditional vehicle is the coordinated campaign which can be funded by the national committees not subject to the same strict caps on individual contributions. This story will probably ripen post-convention when most of the other local campaigns begin to kick into gear.

I’m going to guess that down-ticket Dems may get some cash after the convention. But until then, it’s all about Obama. Well, since the generic Democrat runs quite well and Obama seems to be underperforming as a candidate, only keeping steady with McCain in a year any Republican should be relegated to sweeping confetti after the election, maybe he does need all the money.

Or maybe it costs an awful awful lot to rent that stadium in Denver.