Obama and Coleman, again
June 25th, 2008 – 3:05 PM by Kevin DuchscherePublic Opinion Strategies, a consulting and polling firm based in Washington, released a poll today showing that while Obama has nine points on McCain in Minnesota, in the Senate race it’s Republican Coleman who’s up nine points on Democrat Franken.
That’s not strikingly different from what other recent polls have indicated. Last month, the Minnesota Poll showed the Illinois senator with a 51-38 advantage over his Republican opponent. The same poll showed that Coleman was ahead of Franken by a 51-44 margin.
Keep a few things in mind. Public Opinion Strategies is a Republican firm that conducted the poll for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which will likely back Coleman. The sample was 350 registered likely voters, a smaller number than usual for such polls.
And it was conducted four weeks ago, a lifetime in a political season.
The POS poll, which has a 5.24 percent margin of error, does include a few interesting tidbits. According to the poll, Minnesota men are essentially split between Obama and McCain, while a majority of Minnesota women are solidly behind Obama. But many more independents said they’re backing McCain (46 percent) than Obama (24 percent).
According to the poll, Coleman’s support is across the board. He leads Franken in all regions of the state except Minneapolis-St. Paul, and he’s ahead among men, women and seniors.
119 Responses to "Obama and Coleman, again"
Coleman leading Franken is no surprise, but it’s hard to believe Obama could be ahead of McCain in Minnesota. For that to happen, we either have a lot of seriously uninformed people here or a lot of commies.
Coleman is a great choice for Democrats this year.
Normy receives well deserved criticism for his shifting-with-the-winds political posturing. Well, the winds are about to blow very Democratic over the next few years. Not a bad time to have a “shifter” sitting across the aisle.
The simple fact is McCain could not carry Minnesota with or without Pawlenty on the ticket.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/veep_watch/
RealClearPolitics Veep Watch
RCP Staff
June 20, 2008
Debating Pawlenty
After making the case for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty yesterday, Chris Cillizza makes the case against him today - which boils down to the following:
1) he isn’t well known nationally
2) he has a weak political organization (he couldn’t even deliver the state for McCain on Feb 5th)
3) he doesn’t appeal to a natural Republican constituency like Evangelicals (who favor Huckabee) or fiscal conservatives (who favor Romney)
Cillizza doesn’t mention that Pawlenty survived in 2006 by the skin of his teeth, winning only 47% of the vote. He trailed in the polls just before election, and was saved from being a one and done Governor thanks to a meltdown by his DFL opponent Mike Hatch.
Regardless, it’s debatable whether Minnesota will be within McCain’s reach with or without Pawlenty on the ticket.
The only thing good about having an Obamanation and a willing accomplice democrat controlled Congress is that they would screw up our country and economy so bad that the democrat party would be out of power for a very long time.
Hey D2 — NEWS FLASH: Minnesota is a liberal state. The only time we elect Republicans is when they’re moderates…like Tim Pawlenty, Arnie Carlson…he11, even Al Quie was a moderate.
South Dakota is a lot more conservative, plus they don’t have a state income tax. Why don’t you move there?
The only real point of discussion I see here is if Kevin would have been so quick to point out POS is “a Republican firm” whatever that is, if Franken would have been leading Coleman.
I think Kevvies bias is showing….
Les, lots of conservative groups feel that polls generally have a liberal bias. So there are “Republican” or “conservative” polling organizations who — much like Fox News — compensate by putting a conservative spin on their polls…That’s what Kevin is talking about.
That margin of error means they surveyed 350 people - that’s a decent sample size for a state the size of Minnesota, so I think the survey’s good.
The important thing about any poll is “Does it FEEL right?”
This one feels about right. Leave it to the pundits to explain why, depending on their political leanings.
Like Kevin’s post.
Is it my cpu or the site that does not let me copy postings today?
John;
I’ve noted the copy option seems to age out on older postings. I’ve had the same problem in the past.
BTW;
Happy 2nd Amendment day everyone!
Sarge;
I know that, the point was his need to point that out. I contend if that organization had Frankenstien in the lead he would have remained silent on the issue.
Sarge,
Minneapolis and St. Paul used to be safe places to live like South Dakota, but liberal policy took care of that.
Les says:
“Happy 2nd Amendment day everyone!”
Thanks! We came very close to losing some rights today. The liberal activist judges who view the Second Amendment as unconstitutional need to go away.
The DOW dropped about 350 today on news that oil went up to $140/barrel and that OPEC minister predicted $170/barrel coming. The economy is suffering and people’s 401K accounts are rapidly losing value because of this, but the do nothing democrat controlled Congress went on break without doing anything about the immediate need to start drilling our own oil. No wonder they have a record low approval rating of around 12%.
Many uninformed people are considering voting for Obama because of the economy when in reality, policies like the ones he supports put us in this situation.
I didn’t ask you that D2, I asked why don’t you move to South Dakota if you think it’s such a great place? There are more of your people there anyway.
Minneapolis and St Paul were much more dangerous back in the late 70s as I recall. Don’t you remember what block E was like in 1981? Yikes.
sarge states: “.. there are more of your people there anyway.” Where are your stats to back that up?
Unless you are a criminal, the liberals have ruined the Twin Cities since the 70’s. Other than the crime , the bad schools and poor government services the libs have done well in the cities.
God bless you D2SI! Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Thanks Cash N. Carey!
Sarge says:
“Minneapolis and St Paul were much more dangerous back in the late 70s as I recall.”
This is absolute B.S. Sarge! I grew up around 23rd and Lyndale North in the 60’s and 70’s and things weren’t too bad. I could ride my banana seat bike vitually anywhere north of Broadway Ave. and be safe, but now the danger zone has extended well into Brooklyn Park and growing northward. I lived in B.P. as well and watched it go down the toilet due the fact the Minnesota is a TAXPAYER FUNDED LIBERAL WELFARE MAGNET.
I’m curious, are you going to say God Bless you President Obama and Senator Franken, CnC?
God, I hope not. Looks like he wont have to in Franken’s case anyway.
D2, first I want to point out to you today’s story that Olga Franco is telling the truth about the Cottowood bus crash — DNA proves that an unidentifed male was driving. Maybe you and Saint Katherine could acknowledge the fact that you made a mistake in assassinating the character of this poor woman — who was in fact telling the truth all along, and is in fact a victim.
Secondly - 23rd and Lyndale North may have been nice back then, but downtown was a p1ssho1e, and south minneapolis was exceptionally dangerous. Bad neighborhoods move around. In the 60s and 70s, the east side of St Paul was a wonderful neighborhood — now look at it - it’s dangerous. Trouble moves around. 23rd and Lyndale North doesn’t reflect crime as a whole…
CNC, I live in one of the most liberal cities in Minnesota — St Paul — and we have THE BEST school system in the state. They have also turned around some cr@pyy neighborhoods and made them GREAT. Don’t be so quick to blame the liberals for all the ills of the twin cities. The towns that have been run by republicans are full of bland urban sprawl (i.e. wastelands), and now that gas is approaching $5.00 a gallon, we’re going to see more flight back into the urban areas — we’ll see who complains about the liberal investments then.
Hey guess who’s cosponsoring yet another one of these “protecting marriage from being forever defiled by hot gay action” Constitutional amendments? Two terrible hypocrites: an adulterous bathroom goblin and an adulterous diaper fetishist. Larry Craig and David Vitter should have gay diapered bathroom sex and then filibuster the crap out of each other, because that is what Jesus wanted when he wrote the Fruitcake Constitution.
Since I haven’t heard from OT in a while, I did a lil’ cut-n-paste of my own…
Sarge - Great schools in Saint Paul? Here are the test scores, they are pathetic.
http://ww2.startribune.com/dynamic/no_child/district.php?location_refer=Special%20Projects
No wonder the liberals hate NCLB since it holds folks accountable for results. As you stated, Saint Paul is a liberal city and the data shows they have lousy schools. The liberals have run the Twin Cities for years and they have the results to prove it. Nobody with kids that go to school should have to put up with the Saint Paul or Minneapolis schools’ level of incompetence.
You have a nice hockey arena though if that makes you feel better.
Ah yes, the good ol’ no child left behind standard. Only a schmendrik like yourself would look at two test scores and judge the whole district by them. There are a few bad schools in Saint Paul, sure. For every Como and Johnson, there’s a Humboldt and Central.
The problem with NCLB is that it teaches kids to pass one test at one point in time. Teachers end up teaching to a test — not for the individual student. The knowledge doesn’t stay with them.
See, this is what happens when you let politicians tell educators how and what to teach. What a sham. I suppose you’d like to teach “creation science” in the schools — that will really help the U.S. compete with the rest of the world.
NCLB is also a federal mandate — aren’t you uber-conservatives supposed to be against that kind of thing? Oh wait — it was Bush’s bill right? So it’s actually liberal.
Sarge,
Why do you think we have urban sprawl? It’s because liberals have screwed up cities like Minnneapolis and St. Paul so bad that people are forced to leave.
Cash N. Carey is right, the schools there are crappy, and the cities themselves are dangerous.
For those of you who slept through World History 101 here is a condensed version. Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.
These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, golfers, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today’s lesson in world history.
Nothing personal D2, but you’re kind of talking out of your @ss right now.
The cause of urban or suburban sprawl is lack of planning and speedy development - Republicans and Democrats agree on this.
“The cause of urban or suburban sprawl is lack of planning and speedy development”
Sarge,
I’ve been living in a rural area NW of Mpls. for over twenty years now, and I’ve watched many families build homes and move out to this area. Virtually every one of them I’ve talked to told me that they were sick of the crime in Mpls. and surrounding inner ring suburbs and decided to leave for the safety of their families.
Our liberal welfare magnet has a lot to do with this, displacing hard working families in Mpls. with multi-generational welfare recipients from Chicago and the resulting gangs.
I have 4 extra tickets for the upcoming Robbie Knievel Daredevil event if anybody wants them.
He’s going to try to jump 500 Obama
supporters with a large bulldozer.
Todays’s Strib has an article on the front page describing an economic index called the “Misery Level”, the higher the number, the worse it is. Today we are sitting at 9.68%, much lower than the high of 21.98% in June of 1980 which was when the disastrous economic and energy policies of liberal democrat Jimmy Carter were taking full effect.
Thank God a Conservative named Ronald Reagan was able to turn this around. It’s pretty frightening to think they we may be foolish enough to elect Obama as Commander in Chief who would run the country exactly like Carter did.
How would explain the next high number in any given year belonged to Gerald Ford in ‘75? Was it the whole Nixon pardon thing that caused that spike? Or if you tear apart the two components, to this, Reagan’s unemployment number were worse then Carter’s for most of his term in office. Reagan’s numbers and Bush’s number are terrible compared to Clinton’s. How does that fit in with your whole “liberals are terrible” meme? This analysis is basically useless. What you’re really saying is, “Thank God , we had a conservative named Ronald Reagan, who turned the United States into a state sponsor of terrorism, who was directly responsible for the rape, torture, and murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, who was the leader of the most corrupt administration in this nations history.” Yes D2, that’s your hero. Ronald Reagan, the worst, most corrupt president in this nations history.
Richard,
Jimmy Carter was by far the worst President in American history. I’m sure there were economic problems when Reagan took over because of the long lasting devistation done by Carter’s extreme liberal policies, but after time Reagan was able to fix that.
Why would anyone want a repeat of the failed Carter administration?
Actually Richard, you’ve touched on a very valid point. Lots of D2’s like to say that we’re in a “Clinton Recession”. So using that logic, would you call the 79-82 recession the Nixon-Ford recession?
Bush did inherit the “Clinton Recession” and he did a good job pulling us out of it despite 9-11 and Katrina. Things were going well until the democrats took control of both Houses.
Gerald Ford preceded (that means came before) Carter. The next high value of in any year belongs to Ford. Explain that. Reagan/Bush economics accomplished only one thing, as intended. It made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Only recently has the divide between rich and poor grown at a faster rate. The Clinton economy roared because it reversed that trend. Bush the lesser’s economy is tanking because it returned to that model. D2, you really are too stupid to have a keyboard.
D2, you don’t get it…By using your logic, Carter inherited a recession from Nixon and Ford — so he really can’t be blamed for all those problems from 79-81…according to what you’re saying.
Sarge and Richard,
Carter’s problems were caused by his own extremely stupid energy and economic policies, very similiar to what B.H. Obama wants to inflict on America again. Carter told Americans in 1977 that we were would be out of oil in 10 years, and conservation (reducing our quality of life) was the only solution.
No wonder many of Obama’s followers are very young. They are endoctinated by our liberal public school system and are totally unaware of the damage done to this country by the Carter administration.
What a coincidence. Out of some masochistic impulse, I tuned into Jason Loser on my drive home on Friday and for the 10 or 15 minutes that I could bear his idiocy, he was spouting the same wrong “facts”. So D2, I think we’ve gotten to the root of your problem. You think like an idiot racist fascist because you listen to idiot racist fascists. In 1977 there was an oil embargo going on, remember? Gas lines? Here’s a line from a speech Carter gave in 1977. Could it be the one you and the loser are referring to?
“It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. “We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
I can see how you and the loser would take offense at that kind of thinking. I mean really. Where’s the completely narcissistic and selfish “me” component here. All this talk of future generations. That’s just crazy.
But wait, there’s more.
“We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.”
Again, all this talk of the future is getting a little irritating.
“We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.”
According to the loser, that’s like a God given right. Government has no business telling me I can’t waste food and energy at an obscene rate just because it might be a major cause of 75% of the world’s population living on a dollar a day.
There’s so much wrong with that kind of thinking and that kind of narcissism that time prevents me from going further but, seriously D2, you are a special kind of idiot to go along with it.
Richard,
The problem is easy to define and solve. America is producing less oil every year because of democrat and RINO restrictions on domestic oil exploration, while worldwide demand is increasing. While we need to take advantage of all forms of energy such as solar, wind, clean coal, nuclear, hydrogen, natural gas, oil, etc., the switch away from oil is many years off and we need to tap into our own vast oil reserves to keep our economy going until technology is ready.
Richard, do you really think that our economy can survive a social*st Obama Presidency with an accomplice democrat Congress? Obama will make Jimmy Carter look successful.
I’m not going to repeat myself again– it’s the infamous D2 brick wall. You’re incapable of wrapping your head around someone else’s perspective — it’s impossible for you.
Each time D2 starts losing sight, there’s one thing I want to know — what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
Sarge,
It’s well known that Carter’s policies hurt this country. Why won’t you at least admit that?
It’s well known that Reagan was a criminal of unprecedented proportions. D2, won’t you at least admit that.
From Carter’s 1977 speech.
“They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.” But that would be wrong. It would be un-American. It would lead to future oil shocks, and the probable death of American soldiers in Middle Eastern oil wars. Instead of caving in to the Saudis and the oil industry, Carter said: “There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.”
The guy was almost exactly 30 years ahead of his time. Actually, if the criminal Reagan not been elected and we had continued on Carter’s program. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.
Reagan labeled Mandela’s African National Congress a notorious terrorist organization, while continuing Washington’s support for the apartheid regime. In 1981, Reagan explained to CBS that he was loyal to the South African regime because it was “a country that has stood by us in every war we’ve ever fought, a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world in its production of minerals.”
Reagan supported the worst regime’s on the planet for what? Some high moral purpose? Nope, nothing more then cold hard cash baby. That was his barometer for human rights.
And meanwhile Reagan was creating, training, and supplying his own terrorist army in Central America. Reagan turned the United States into a state sponsor of terror. Between 300,000 and 1 million people were raped tortured and murdered as a direct result of Reagan’s directives. Nice hero you have there D2. Oh yeah, there’s the whole selling arms to Iraq and Iran during their war. No effort at all to try and end the war, nope. Let’s keep it rolling and let General Dynamics, GE, Carlye Group, Bectal, and a whole host of arms manufacturers make a dollar off of the death and mayhem of a war.
Richard,
Why don’t we drill our own oil so we don’t have to be so dependant on the Arabs and leftist dictators like Hugo Chavez? Oh that’s right, the liberals won’t let us.
It’s also a matter of national security. While we are safer today from Islamic terror than we were under Clinton, there is still a threat that the Islamofascists could take over or destroy much of the oil supply in the middle east. If that happens with the restrictions on domestic oil exploration imposed on us by liberals, we are screwed.
Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents
Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6
Liberals do like to expand the number of government jobs.
You mean like the increase in government workers under Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the lesser. Or like the reduction in government workers under Clinton?
President Clinton cut the federal bureaucracy by more than 100,000 positions in his first two years. Under the recommendations of the National Performance Review, the federal bureaucracy was reduced by 272,000 — its lowest level since the Kennedy Administration.
If it’s for border patrol and the military, I’m all for. Liberals like to expand things like the welfare state and other bureaucracies.
In another example of extreme liberal bias at the Star Democrat Tribune, the front page of Sunday’s paper has a tear jerking pro-illegal alien piece on the meatpacking raid in Iowa last month.
Not only were these 300 people here illegally, they were involved in identity theft and had stolen social security cards. If that doesn’t call for deportation, what does?
Richard,
Clinton also got credit for passing much needed welfare reform. He fought it all the way and didn’t want to do it, but the Republican controlled Congress and the American people demanded it.
Wow, it’s hard to keep up with you D2. First you post about what a great guy Raygun was. That was debunked. Then you post about liberals expanding government jobs. That was debunked. Then you shift to illegal aliens and I’m not sure what your point is there. Then Clinton’s welfare reform initiative. How soon before it begins to dawn on you that your whole belief structure is fundamentally wrong? How soon before you figure out, what you think you know, ain’t so? Anyway, go to work in a meat packing plant and see how good those folks had it. What have you got against people trying to feed their families? How big a douchebag are you?
Richard,
Only a liberal like you would think that we should just open up our borders and let anyone who pleases come here. You may not realize it but this causes serious problems.
Thousands of pregnant illegals have been illegally crossing our border to pop out anchor babies at US Taxpayers expense, they then have US citizen babies who qualify for welfare and other US Taxpayer funded freebees. Also, the 4 kids killed by an illegal alien driver would be alive today if liberal democrats and RINO Republicans would have done their jobs and secured our borders. There are many other serious problems caused by the illegal invasion too numerous to mention here.
As far as Reagan goes, he was the best President of modern times. You may not agree with some of his methods, but he was feared and repected by thug leaders around the globe.
-He ended the Cold War
-He got Kadaffy to quit his terrorist ways
-The Iranian Islamofascists turned over the American hostages taked during the Carter Administration on the day he took office. They knew Carter was weak and did they what they wanted to us without fear, but they were afraid of pissing off Reagan.
From Wikipedia
The AFDC system was under constant attack in the 1980s; these continued in the 1990s, with Presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowing to, in the words of chief domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed, “end welfare as we know it.” Clinton, once elected, worked with a Republican congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats.
It looks like Neutron and company were just riding the coattails of a wildly successful Democratic President. Can’t really blame them given the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is the GOP.
Clinton did sign and take credit for it, but he stalled and resisted the entire time. Again, like Wellstone, he didn’t want meaningful welfare reform, but he was pressured into going along with it. Democrats want as many people dependant on government as possible so they will vote democrat.
Richard,
It looks like YOU are the one being proven wrong here.
Have a great day Richard. I’ve got some wood to split, but I’ll check in a little later.
Excellent, D2, you just parroted three huge myths that Reagan fellators say aloud into the mirror every morning. It’s what keeps you from throwing up if you recognized the truth. Anyway, here goes, Reagan was in office when the Russians ran out of money. That’s it, that’s his sole connection.
Regarding Gadhafi from Wiki
In late 1987 a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, was intercepted. Destined for the IRA, a large consignment of arms and explosives supplied by Libya was recovered from the Eksund. British intelligence believed this was not the first and that Libyan arms shipments had previously reached the IRA. (See Provisional IRA arms importation)
Nelson Mandela negotiated with Gaddafi the hand-over of two accused Libyans for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial
Nelson Mandela negotiated with Gaddafi the hand-over of two accused Libyans for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial
For most of the 1990s, Libya endured economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as a result of Gaddafi’s refusal to allow the extradition to the United States or Britain of two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Through the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela - who made a high-profile visit to Gaddafi in 1997 - and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to a compromise that involved handing over the defendants to the Netherlands for trial under Scots law. U.N. sanctions were thereupon suspended, but U.S. sanctions against Libya remained in force.
This is all after the ‘86 killing of Gadhafi’s wife and daughter. All after Raygun.
And finally the infamous Iranian hostage release timing thing.
But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they’d sell them missiles and other weapons if only they’d keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.
Reagan traded arms for hostages as a political ploy. Depraved, morally bankrupt, utterly without scruples. Those terms best define Ronald Reagan.
Reagan/Bush campaign “allegedly” promised the oil-rich mullahs…..
Where do you dig up this crap? Can’t you just admit that Reagan was a far better President than Carter who was arguably the worst President in the history of the United States? Carter is also an anti-Semite and is visiting terrorist Islamist countries making a fool of himself.
D2,, remember arms for hostages? Remember the whole Iran/Contra deal? Ollie North had to be pardoned to get out of spending a considerable amount of his future in jail. Are you that brainwashed?
You’re willing to forgive Reagan’s policy of mass murder and rape but castigate Carter because of economic performance that was largely out of his control. I think that clearly demonstrates how morally bankrupt you and your whole philosophy is. Think about it for just a moment next time your in church. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the rape torture and murder of over a half a million people. Directly responsible.
Richard,
President Reagan was a good man and did the world a huge favor by ending the cold war with the commun*sts. Liberals like to attack Reagan because while they believe that government is the solution to all problems, he wisely said that government IS the problem.
Again, you and other liberals like to whine about Reagan, but you really shouldn’t lie about him saying that he planned the rape, torture, and murder of over half a million people. Dictators like Saddam Hussein and Mugabe did that, not Reagan.
And government certainly IS the problem with high gas prices right now. Things will only get much worse if Americans are foolish enough to elect a social*st like Obama with a Congress controlled by the democrat party.
excellent:
Last updated: 5:00 am
June 28, 2008
THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you’re too stupid to know the difference.
Let’s lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:
Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.
And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.
A record to be proud of.
Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven’t suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.
Explain to me, please, how this shows we’re less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?
God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn’t. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?
Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).
Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.
By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.
Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.
If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq’s government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq’s major cities.
And our troops are coming home. Where’s the failure?
Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who’ve rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who’ve smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn’t take long to figure out that Tehran’s foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.
The people of Iraq don’t intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning.
The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe’s young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.
Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they’re sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO’s military side. Where’s the disaster, mon ami?
Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy - and John McCain’s too old to get it.
Hmm: Take a gander at Obama’s senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .
If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you’d land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.
You couldn’t assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.
Tell it to the Marines.
Great points O.T.! Thanks.
YOU CAN’T FUEL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME
by Ann Coulter
June 25, 2008
Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are “anti-choice.”
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats’ “energy” policies.
Democrats couldn’t care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.
Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in “The Population Explosion” that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan.
The result is consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That’s not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.
B. Hussein Obama’s response to soaring gas prices is to have the oil companies collect even more money from us at the pump, proposing a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. “Corporate taxes” sound like taxes on rich people, but all they do is force corporations to collect taxes on behalf of the government.
Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!
In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”
What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, “You can’t eat your way out of being hungry!” “You can’t water your way out of drought!” “You can’t sleep your way out of tiredness!” “You can’t drink yourself out of dehydration!”
Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil?
It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race. It’s the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).
How do liberals propose we acquire the energy required for the economic activity and production that results in light appearing when they flick a switch? The larger enterprise involved in producing that little miracle eludes them.
Liberals complain that — as B. Hussein Obama put it — there’s “no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road.”
This is as opposed to airplanes that run on woodchips, which should be up and running any moment now.
Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn’t anyone propose drilling back then?
Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn’t have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.
If only we had had such a group — let’s call them “elected representatives” — they could have proposed drilling five years ago!
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them — we’ll call them Republicans — did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.
Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!
We’d be gushing oil now — except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.
Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR’s 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.
The other party — plus John McCain — ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!
They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.
Wow Richard, I think you bit off a little more than you can chew. Nothin personal dude, but I usually chastize people for tossing around statistics without saying where they got ‘em (and Wikipedia isn’t a valid source).
D2, why don’t you tell me which of Carter’s policy hurt America if you’re so certain he was worse than W?
OT — those “whoppers” in that column you pasted? Classic straw arguments again. I think you’re more angry about what the right is telling you about the left, than what the left is actually doing itself.
One more thing D2 — you can have my respect, or you can paste Ann Coulter columns — your choice.
LOL, what a read.
My Ex-pres is better than yours, Nana Nana boo boo.
Hey guys, it was a wonderful weekend weather wise, in case you didnt notice.
Sgt P. Ditto on the Wikipedia!!
more of sarge’s straw men:
McCain’s campaign Sunday issued a pair of outraged statements after retired general and Barack Obama supporter Wesley Clark said he didn’t think that McCain’s service as a fighter pilot and prisoner of war was relevant to running the country. Obama has consistently praised McCain’s service, and called him “a genuine American hero.”
But farther to the left—and among some of McCain’s conservative enemies as well—harsher attacks are circulating. Critics have accused McCain of war crimes for bombing targets in Hanoi in the 1960s. Sunday, a widely read liberal blog accused McCain of “disloyalty” during his captivity in Vietnam for his coerced participation in propaganda films and interviews after he’d been tortured.
OPEC sells oil for $136.00 a barrel.
OPEC nations buy U.S. grain at $7.00 a bushel.
Solution: Sell grain for $136.00 a bushel.
Can’t buy it? Tough! Eat your oil!
O.T.
While I dont necessarily disagree with your sentiments on the issue, I have to say the Argentinians, Canadians, and probably some African countries would love to sell their grain for $10 a bushel while we kept our $136 bushels.
Besides, we would then be accused of starving those nations like Zimbabwe, even though they used to be the ‘bread basket” of Africa.
Ah, Wesley Clark.
That would be the same former SACEUR (USCINCEUR) who was fired (”retired early”) for almost starting WWIII in Kosovo, and said the Surge would not work in Iraq.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-bushs-surge-will-backfire-431053.html
Yup, my chosen military expert…
First it’s whether Obama has a fake birth certificate, now it’s whether or not Wesley Clark is qualified to criticize a fellow Vet.
I’m glad we’re talking about important things. This is going to be a great campaign…
P.S. OT, are you on medication or something right now? You’re not making a lot of sense, and I’m having a hard time discerning between cut-n-pastes and your actual rants.
Sgt P;
It’s a little more than one vet being able to crticize another.
Clark say McCains service doesnt qualify him becasue his only command experince was during peacetime. He maintains McCain “doesnt understand the strategic issues”..
Stated by a commander who was fired becasue he though a Nato (British) commander should stop Russians troops by force.
His running his mouth about the surge and proving himself wrong, and McCain, (who called for the surge log before Bush implemented it) Correct, doesnt help his cred any either.
You get Colin Powell to say the things Clark is and I’ll by them.
I can only hope the Obamanation is dumb enough to pick Clark for VP.
Important things..
My wife’s tomatoes are setting fruit.
That’s my point Les - Clark’s criticism is the news, not issues. It’s stupid. I don’t think Obama would have picked him anyway - he’s a fool if he doesn’t choose Hillary.
for all you oil maniacs out there who think we are running out (parthian) or think our energy independance hinges on the ANWR (dare2), I see our very own Strib ran an AP story today on the Bakken deposit in North Dakota that parthian was trying to disparage a couple of months back.
The story cites the US Geological Survey as saying it is the “largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.” That seems to fly in the face of parthian’s contention that there isn’t enough there to matter. I also had a buddy of mine up there tell me that one of their most recent wells went revenue-positive afteronly the first 22 days of operation. Seems the process to recover it isn’t as costly as parthian claimed either.
This isn’t oil under some remote acre in the most inaccessible region of the globe, and it isn’t burried under miles of deepwater in the ocean. It won’t take 20 years to get to market, and it doesn’t require some magical, costly, technology to recover. This is happening right now. Pat attention, folks.
Well Jay, that’s great news, sorta.
It doesnt seem to be calming down those brothers of yours in the oil trading business. They’re still going nuts on futures.
So, until they calm down, whoever’s doing the drilling is making beaucoup bucks!! Good for them, bad for us drivers.
Bakken is one of the biggest deposits, but expensive to extract. It’s a relatively thin layer of very thick crude, infused with sand. It is only because of the current high oil prices that Bakken is getting attention. If it ever produces enough to affect prices, it will kill it’s own viability.
It’s part of the “drill more” solution. Feeds demand, but won’t reduce prices. Only the “use less” solution helps prices.
Yet as U.S. consumption drops, prices still rise..
I’m hearing Congress squashed one fo the bills written to help regulate the energy speculation. That is unfortunate. I’m generally a ‘let the free market work itself out’ kind of guy, but there are clearly factors at play here that render that attitude too passive. I’m sure it would eventually work out, but at what cost in the meantime?
Congress needs to step in and curb the madness. Although it may have two unintended consequences: 1) squeeze the speculative money ourt of energy, and they will end up creating a bubble somewhere else, and 2) squeezing the speculative money out of energy creates less liquidity, thus giving more market power to the entities involved in the fundamentals (ie what many would consider to be ‘Big Oil’).
Pick your poison.
wishIwuzz..
The Canadians dont agree with your assessment of the oil quality.
http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2007/December/21/Saskatchewans-red-hot-Bakken-oil-formation
Red-hot is a term being used a lot lately to describe the Bakken oil formation, which is possibly the largest conventional oil discovery in Canada since 1957. Estimates are anywhere from a conservative 25 billion barrels of oil in place, to a high estimate by the United States Geological Survey of 400 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation. Not only is the oil plentiful, but it’s high quality too, 41 degree light sweet crude.
wishIwuz: “If it ever produces enough to affect prices, it will kill it’s own viability.”
I’m told horizontal drilling in the Bakken is profitable at $60-75/barrell crude prices. Granted, those are pretty subjective targets. Certainly less than the $142 we are at now.
I would argue that it can’t “kill its own viability.” If prices drop to the point at which it no longer makes sense to pull from there, production will just scale back…. to be increased at a later date if/when prices go back up. It doesn’t just ‘go away’ if prices tank.
Jay…
Like I told the wifey this morning when she asked “why dont they do something about “futures” trading at $143″. Until someone gets stung with high priced options they cant sell, were gonna have to grin and bear it…And drive less.
Even if you could do something to limit trading in U.S. markets, how can congress control or regulate foreign oil exchanges?
Les, in all fairness, the comments I have seen are that the quality is unusually variable. Some of it is the crap wishlwas is talking about. Much is the primo quality that you mention. A “mixed bag” which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I’m no geological expert either.
The part everyone seems to agree on is that it covers a large area and there is probably a very significant amount there.
Jay;
The variability may be a fact. But everything I’ve heard, which is just as valid as everones elses ears, says otherwise, and when I research it, I find everyone writing it’s high quality, the canadian report is only one.
unlike the tar from Canada’s oil sands, Bakken crude needs little refining. Swirl some of it in a Mason jar and it leaves a thin, honey-colored film along the sides. It’s light — almost like gasoline — and sweet, meaning it’s low in sulfur.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004463348_dakotaoil07.html
Shoulda put quotes on my last, they’re the word’s from the article, not mine.
“My assessment”, Les? If you really think I personally made a test drill, I’m flattered. And you seem to see words I didn’t write. I made no comment about the quality, only the difficult extraction conditions.
You say, “Yet as U.S. consumption drops, prices still rise…” Not true, both since consumption hasn’t dropped, and U.S. consumption is only one factor in global market prices.
my point was simply that the quality is not limited to the heavy, sand infused garbage wishlwas mentioned. Nor is it a single thin layer. Most of what I’ve read talks about the better quality like you mentioned. Of course, it wouldn’t be much to write about if your headline was “Large deposit of some sh1t we can’t utliize.”
The take-home message here is that A) there’s lots of it, and B) at least a large % of it is of high quality.
” — and sweet, meaning it’s low in sulfur.”
Yeah, but how does it taste on ice cream?
THanks for the info Jay — insightful as usual.
WisIwuz:
Who wrote the following:
“Bakken is one of the biggest deposits, but expensive to extract. It’s a relatively thin layer of very thick crude, infused with sand.”
“very thick, infused with sand” is not a comment on the quality???
If you are reporting someones elses results, please provide the source.
AAA reported last month that gasoline demand in the U.S. has dropped…
wishlwas: “Not true… since consumption hasn’t dropped”
Actually that is true, and your claim otherwise is false. US consumption has been steadily and consistantly dropping since 2002. DOE stats will confirm that. Look it up before you attempt to cry ‘foul’ on others.
wishlwas is certainly right about the global demand angle though. I’ll add to that thought:
Not only is US demand only one factor among several in global energy prices, but our demand is an ever-decreasing factor in that equation. We are using less while others are using much more.
SgtP:
terrible. It’s better with a beer.
everything is better with beer.
Nuts - my consumption info is apparently bad. My apologies. I used the words “not true” - I didn’t “cry foul”. I guess I’m used to calmer tempers.
The ‘thin layer of thick crude infused with sand’ was meant as a comment on the extraction difficulties. I hold to it, but won’t labor over everyone’s pessimistic translation of “garbage”.
Try and have a happy day.
Well, no problem, I just didnt realize that ‘very thick’ and ‘light’ were synonomous when it comes to oil.
Tsk…come on now there’s no need to be snotty.
Les, earlier you mentioned Clark starting WWII again - what’s that about? When the bombing in Kosovo was winding down in June 1999, I had just arrived in BFE, Kraplakistan and had zero access to the news in English…so I kind of missed out on how things ended.
wishlwuz: “The ‘thin layer of thick crude infused with sand’ was meant as a comment on the extraction difficulties. I hold to it, but won’t labor over everyone’s pessimistic translation of “garbage”.”
You are probably being somewhat mistreated due to some degree of guilt-by-association with parthian. His posts have been littered with many of the same misconceptions as yours, and parthian holds them up as reasons why it is impossible to harvest those reserves. You seem to mention them more as challenges or obstacles…..which is not entirely untrue.
It certainly takes a little more creativity and money to recover oil in the Bakken shale. My point has simply been that the challenges are small and we seem to be overcoming them quite readily. Sorry if we stepped on your toes a little too hard.
I’d tend to lean a little more toward Les in that your comments seemed to be a statement of crude oil quality, even if that was not your intent.
SgtP:
Unfortunately from wikipedia:
Priština International Airport
One of Clark’s most argued decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told “of course you have to get to the airport” and “you have transfer of authority” in the area. The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action saying “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.” Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians. American General Hugh Shelton called Jackson’s refusal “troubling,” and hearings in the United States Senate suggested it may amount to insubordination, with Senator John Warner suggesting holding hearings regarding whether the refusal was legal and potentially changing those rules if it was.[72] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie, however, agreed with Jackson and told Clark this on the day Jackson refused the order.[73] Russian eventually withdrew its aid, as some nations, including Bulgaria and Romania (both of which sought eventual NATO membership), disallowed Russian aircraft to fly over their territory, halting their ability to bring in forces.[74][75]
Wha…that’s weird. So who told the Russians they’d be policing the region? Who invited them?
And what the he11 was Solana doing telling Clark to get to the airport? He should have spoken to his counterpart in the Sovie…er…Russian Army and worked out the details.
Whoever let the Russkies in — that was the mistake.
Be that as it may, the fact remains this guy was willing to start a shooting war over it. It makes him one heck of a peaceloving democrat!
One wonders what the Clinton administraton’s directives were.
Yeah, but Clark went to Solana and asked for direction — even Republicans in the Senate supported Clark’s actions — isn’t that what the Wiki entry said?
I still go back to the quesiton, what the he11 were the Russians doing there 2 days after the bombing stopped? Who invited them in, and why wasn’t their deployment coordinated with NATO?
The fact that Clark went to Solana for direction tells me that this was Solana’s baby.
No, Congress supported the position that the British officer committed insubordination. That doesnt make the actual order “wise” or “approved by congress”.
Solana told him he had the authority to ‘police the area” and transferred authority to Clark. Clark made the bone head decision to order the British to start shooting at the Russians if they didnt obey Nato orders, not Solana, not the U.S. Congress.
I agree the Russians shouldn’t of been there, but seeing they were “expecting to help police” rather than “occupying” the area, I dont think shooting at them becasue of a lack of coordination between Nato and the Russians shows good judgement on Clark’s part.
Bottom line question, Why didn’t he contact the Russians rather than order the British to use force?? To me it smacks of the Patton VS Montgomery idiocies of WWII.
Actually, the lack of communications between Nato and the Russians could also be layed at Clark’s door, but not exclusively.
From this Clinton Speech:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/clinton.kosovo/transcript.html
Now — now last week, despite our differences over the NATO action in Kosovo, Russia joined us through the G-8 foreign ministers in affirming basic conditions for ending the conflict and affirming that the mass expulsion of the Kosovars cannot stand.
We and Russia agreed that the international force ideally should be endorsed for the United Nations as it was in Bosnia, and we do want Russian forces along those with — with those of other nations to participate because the Russians presence will help to reassure the Serbs who live in Kosovo, and they will need some protection after all that has occurred.
–
Looks like the politicians invited them. How could it be Clark was unaware of this?
I’m sorry — where does it say Clark ordered Jackson to shoot? If he did, he should have been sh1tcanned immediately.
As far as Clinton’s speech — I agree with him - it was wise to bring Russian in, but it should have been coordinated with NATO.
On Oil:
North Dakota oil is not really news: we knew about it fifty years ago. Nor is the fact that we have lots of other oil untapped within our boundaries.
It is also not news that the oil companies have declined to exploit these resources, as demand and prices worldwide have escalated.
In a competitive world, if someone can produce a product for less he will be sure to do so. In a monopoly world, it is more likely that opportunities to increase supply and cut costs — and so prices — will not be seized, because excess demand will increase profit.
In the present oil situation, I believe the only way to discourage the excess profit taking that is going on by the oil companies (hand in hand with the cartels) is to take net oil company income before R&D, subtract 8% profit allowance (taxable at standard rates), then tax all excess profit over that at 100%, allowing only demonstrated R&D to reduce the taxable amount.
With this incentive, and the incentive to seek windfall profits taken away, I believe we would see a significant rise in production, in exploitation of currently “known-unproven” reserves, in world supplies currently and in future available, and the departure of the speculators fearful of having to eat their futures contracts.
Best of all, we would not need a huge government bureaucracy to run it: we already have one in the IRS.
Sgt P: From the quote above:
refused to block the Russians through military action saying.
You define ‘military action’ then.
Jay:
Doesnt that smack of Jimmy C’s ‘windfall taxes” debacle of the 70’s? And how does that affect production by Canada and OPEC? What if Exxon moves it’s taxable location to Canada?
Les,
In the belief you were addressing my post, I respond thus:
If Exxon moves it taxable location to Canada, it will still be taxable for all revenues generated in the US, their biggest market. As are Canadian producers who sell to us now, for their US sales. Further, the prospects that the oil companies would simply abandon their biggest market in the world are about as likely as that Coke would leave the US market for China.
Since OPEC is part of the world market, they would be affected indirectly by the increased supply, and would have incentive to increase production and so lower prices to keep market share.
Jimmy C’s taxes, as I recall, were not proposed to fall on the oil companies, but added to the consumer’s tab at the pump. The taxes I proposed would be completely avoidable if the oil companies poured ALL their profits above 8% into R&D - a move that would further enrich them in the long run.
Sarge: “Jay:Doesnt that smack of Jimmy C’s ‘windfall taxes” debacle of the 70’s? And how does that affect production by Canada and OPEC? What if Exxon moves it’s taxable location to Canada? ”
Not sure I follow….?? My comments that i think you are responding to were concerning some Congressional talk (as usual, no action) regarding the regulation and limitation of speculative position size on the energy futures pits. It wouldn’t have anything to do with taxes or an industry player like Exxon. Wouldn’t directly effect production either, although the intent would be to retrace the market displacement to the upside that we’ve witnessed…..obviously production levels may respond to price +/-.
The proposed (briefly) legislation would target Goldmann Sachs/Deutsch bank/Hedge Fund “X” from building massive positions….all on the long side, of course….in energy futures. The belief is that you remove a large % of the buying interest that has driven prices skyward. The downside is that you are removing vital liquidy to help insulate future such moves.
Its a temporary fix to a longer term issue….which is why I’m a little surprised that Congress wasn’t all over it immediately. That’s usually right up their alley.
I would differ from John on tax ideas to address energy. I don’t think its wise to tax industry any more than they already are. No one was lining up to offer tax bailouts to oil companies when their revenues were in the toilet. Today, they are making mountains of money, so good for them.
My tax thoughts are that we should segregate commodities of all kinds (metals, energy, grains, lumber, etc) from the stock market and tax the short-term capital gains much differently. If the gov penalized investors for jumping in-and-out of commodities with a year, it would eliminate much of the volatile nature we have seen in the last couple years. There is certainly no reason to treat those gains any differently than ordinary income anyway.
This would also prevent the raising of tax liability to citizens invested in fixed income assets that dish out healthy dividends that they have come to rely on to pay the bills in retirement and/or suppliment their income.
Jay has a couple of good points.
Thx dude. By the way, I received an update today from one of our European offices and apparently teh EU is considering similar measures to reduce speculative positioning in energy markets there as well (ie Brent Crude).
Money has poured into commodities speculation because it is the last asset class that Wall Street and the wealthy can “bubble”. They are able to do it because Bernanke has bailed out the banks and investment banks and not required them to take their losses from the housing bubble and the fraudulent mortgage backed securities they created. So they’ve got the cash and so what if it makes the recession massively worse?
Oil prices are also rising because global demand is not falling even as prices increase, wordl supply is starting to contract (which is inevitable—boobery about the small Bakken deposit notwithstanding.) One can’t get around peak oil and I’m not going to waste any more time with pinheads who deny scientific reality.
Finally, oil prices are rising becauser the dollar is imploding, especially as the European Central Bank INCREASES its interest rate, making the dollar even less attractive. At some point soon, someone with a brain will have to propose the obvious—stop pricing oil in dollars.
I think the Iranians are already advocating this. It’s the only sensible thing to do now that Bush and the “conservative” movement have destroyed the US economy and dollar.
only a few minor corrections…commodities aren’t the last asset class that managed money can create a bubble with, but rather the latest one. There will be another, and another, and another after that.
I’m done bantering with parthian about the cherished Peak Oil theory; and the Bakken is just one of many examples. But global demand is not decreasing, that’s for sure.
I’m happy to see that parthian will not waste time trying to argue about reality anymore.
And finally, the weakness of the USD is certainly one of the bigger factors in the rise of commodity prices, but the obvious answer to me is to strengthen the dollar. Its worth noting that pricing global energy in a currency other than USD has been talked about for years (even when the dollar was strong). There is probably plenty of merit to trying to devise a pricing mechanism for global commodities using a basket of currencies, rather than pinning it to just one.
I’m uncertain if Iran has jumped onto this bandwagon lately, or not. Like I said, the idea has been floating around for many years….long before GWB took office anyway. He has little or ntohing to do with it. And parthian is late to the party with this ‘revelation’ as usual.
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1225)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)