FACTCHECK.ORG

Distorting Obama

McCain's new Web ad misrepresents some of the Democrat's positions on energy.

By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org
Jun 26, 2008 | Updated: 11:49  a.m. ET Jun 26, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Payday Loan Advocate @ 10/21/2008 6:28:40 AM

    Comment: Aldous Huxley, author of the classic novel, Brave New World, gives his readers a ???warning??? of what would come to pass if the government completely controlled our everyday lives. Published in 1932, Huxley wrote the book based on his prediction of how London, his hometown, might look in the year 2540, assuming the continuance of programs to end war, conflict, suffering, and antagonistic (aka: ???free???) thought. Huxley painted a picture of what the world would look like if people were unable to speak their minds, or live how they want to, free from the confines of the multiple levels of government. Many people criticized and continue to criticize Huxley for his novel. Several seeds have been planted in the U.S., which have created alarming parallels to Huxley???s novel. The socialist and communist movements have been lurking in the shadows of America for many generations, but the movements have recently come to the forefront of the political platform. Some politicians are attempting to assign the government exclusive control of too many aspects of daily life. For example, in certain areas of Los Angeles, elected officials have created restrictions on where new fast food restaurants can and cannot establish themselves. Yes, you heard me right; the ???man??? is telling you that you can???t get a juicy hamburger and fries in South L.A., whether you like it or not. What???s worse is that state and national politicians are trying to rob you of your right to access fast and easy payday loans. Politicians want to eliminate payday loans in an attempt to win the votes of bigger corporations like banks, so they can take office and promote their self-interests. Stand up and be heard. Fight to free yourself from the government???s ever-increasing power over your daily life.
    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
    Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
    Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

  • Posted By: Payday Loan Advocate @ 09/26/2008 11:54:16 PM

    Comment: Payday loan customers applaud the payday loan industry mainly because, when used properly, they are the fastest and safest way to get out of an unexpected financial fallback. An old saying asks the question, "If something isn???t broken, than why fix it?" This is a perfect question to direct to many politicians who are attempting to or have outlawed the entire industry in many states. Of course, many people who are living beyond financial wealth would agree with this action and bond to fix something that isn???t broken. They have even inspired presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, to join their inexplicable motion. On November 4, vote for the peoples??? right to financial freedom and independence.

    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
    Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
    Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

  • Posted By: h7373 @ 07/01/2008 1:27:03 PM

    Comment: FACT CHECK, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FALSE STATEMENT MADE FROM THE OBAMA CAMP ABOUT SENATOR MCCAIN? WHERE IS THE UNBAIS REPORTING?

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/27/2008 6:56:24 PM

    Comment: Dude,

    Get a job or find a life. Enough of your rants. Now drink some warm milk, take your meds and go watch Fox for awhile.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 7:11:18 PM

      Comment: THIS IS MY JOB !! AND THE MEDS ARE SO GOOD HERE !!! BEER NO MILK......... DIDN'T YOU READ MY HISTORY 101 COMMENT ?? ITS DOWN THERE IF YOU CARE TO !

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 10:27:43 AM

        Comment: Also regarding the 101 comment, you're wrong. There are 2 kinds of people in the world, but they are:
        1) People who think there are only 2 kinds of people in the world (Themselves and everybody else)
        2) People who see the world as it really is with many different groups and many people belonging to many different groups that are constantly changing.

        Other than that you pretty much will not take the time to think things through, and constantly make these leap to judgements not based on reality, but on preserving your own world as you want to beleive it. Most of the worlds contributions have been made by people who think outside the box, and if living in modern times would have been called, "flaming liberals" or just "they" simply because people they offered CHANGE.

        However, you are right that many conservatives are the first type as you so plainly demonstrate. :-)

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:55:36 AM

        Comment: Your job!!! Right!
        Who would pay you to post distortions and lies?
        Who would tell you to sit there and watch for emails that say "Forward this to everybody you know", and then post them on the internet?
        What would be the point? In order for someone to PAY you to do that, there would need to be money in it for them.
        I wonder whether you even have a job.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 6:18:20 PM

    Comment: Obama all CHANGE all the time:

    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
    CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
    CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
    CHANGE ... the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
    CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
    CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
    CHANGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to
    CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
    CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
    CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
    CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
    CHANGE ... my pastor's screed is OK, yours isn't
    CHANGE ... FISA line that we crossed but I have now moved back
    CHANGE ... from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
    CHANGE ... I'll debate John McCain anytime, anywhere; except when and where he asks me.
    CHANGE ... the words of others and claim they're mine, because words count.
    CHANGE ... the meaning of Bible verses to meet my own liberal world view
    CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
    CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
    CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
    CHANGE ... into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
    CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
    CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
    CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
    CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic foreign policy skills
    CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have prepared speech to read.
    CHANGE ... historical facts to agree with my life story
    CHANGE ... I said the DC gun ban was constitutional, but now I agree with Supreme Court ruling it unconstituional.
    CHANGE ... what I said because my rhetoric was overheated and amplified
    CHANGE ... but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite, CHANGE is for YOU.
    CHANGE ... anything and everything I've said or done in my life if it will help me win
    CHANGE ... the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
    CHANGE ... I can CHANGE when it suits me
    CHANGE ... you can believe in for a day or two
    CHANGE ... you can't keep up with
    CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... YOU better freaking BELIEVE IN because it will WORK YOU over.
    Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 1:36:10 PM

      Comment: Republicans all FEAR all the time, or the Politics of FEAR:

      FEAR - that I may have to pay as much as everybody else, percentage wise, in taxes.
      FEAR - that gas prices will drop and our Exxon shares will lose value
      FEAR - that other people might be just as good as we are even if they seem different.
      FEAR - is what I put in my story no matter whom I'm talking to.
      FEAR - is my foreign policy.
      FEAR - free trade agreements that include fair trade protections.
      FEAR - drives me because I'm convinced the rest of the world is out to get me.
      FEAR - my friends when they turn out to have a conscience.
      FEAR - what I do to facts because I might see I was wrong or worse yet, somebody else might see I was wrong.
      FEAR - is my pastor's creed, And everyone else is just wrong.
      FEAR - even investigating FISA abuses or holding companies accountable, because they may find my party stomped on the Constitution.
      FEAR - financing that might hold people and candidates accountable for the accuracy of what they say.
      FEAR - any debate with Obama that isn't moderated by conservative hit squads, and especially if it follows any accepted debate format.
      FEAR - the words of others and distort them if they don't support my cause.
      FEAR - that I may have misinterpreted the Bible and that threatens my own preconceived view of the world.
      FEAR - any government programs.
      FEAR - Obama because he's building an army of people that will actually help him CHANGE things.
      FEAR - that the media may report the truth, so I just call them biased.
      FEAR - the chant I use to control the weak-minded Republican lackies
      FEAR - CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE!
      FEAR - America because it's the greatest country on the planet, and if it changes anything well I just don't know what that would do.
      FEAR - the nations of the world that we don't control because they are out to get me
      FEAR - turns me into a babling idiot whether I have prepared speech or not because I have no concept of modern day economics or the consequences of my actions.
      FEAR - that I don't even know what Obama said about gun control laws because I've distorted it so many different ways that I forgot, so I'll just call him a "flip-flopper" and call it good..
      FEAR - that my rhetoric was not exaggerated and distorted enough.
      FEAR - that people may find out the truth.
      FEAR - Obama, so I just distort half what he says, call him a "flip-flopper", and say, "We don't really know anything about him", so BE VERY AFRAID. .
      FEAR - of CHANGE, so present the same old policies, relabel them new, and hope that no one will notice.
      FEAR - you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what somebody else will have done after gaining complete control of government and actually solving some of the problems.

      McCain: the AUDACITY to take other people???s ideas belittle them, make fun of them, and so WE DON???T HAVE TO THINK!

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/27/2008 5:43:53 PM

    Comment: Metzlerd is quite accurate. If the oil well is drilled and operated within our boundaries, it never-the-less is the property of BP or Exxon or whomever. It does not flow directly to the refiners in the United States for our use but is sold on the world market for the highest price. Just because we punch more wells off the Texas coast doesn mean that most of that oil will not eventually be sold for use in China or India.

    No one seems to grasp the gifts that America has bestpwed pm big oil. We have given them ownership of our oil. They drill, pump and sell on the open market just as OPEC does. The oil doesn not flow directly back to American refineries..

  • Posted By: GregAugustaGA @ 06/27/2008 4:06:49 PM

    Comment: Why aren't we getting a share of the Iraqi oil?

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 06/30/2008 7:10:38 PM

      Comment: oops wrong link. disregard the first of the two I just posted.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6461581.stm

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 06/30/2008 7:06:04 PM

      Comment: We underestimated the security situation (hundreds of thousands of unemployed ex-saddam soldiers running the streets with guns and joining militias). We also underestimated how much damage we did to the infrastructure and hired incompetant companies to rebuild. This cut into Iraqi oil production bigtime.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbItn8L828

      Also it was never guaranteed to us alone. It's sold on the world market. So even though it is making a few americans alot of money (Halliburton, Cheney etc.), it is causing alot more Americans to lose money at the pump.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:33:50 PM

      Comment: We didn't want to admit that we invaded the country to plunder oil. So now we're in a bit of a hard spot.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:14:58 PM

      Comment: WE SHOULD !!!!

  • Posted By: GregAugustaGA @ 06/27/2008 4:00:30 PM

    Comment: Brooks...You are obviously a Fineman protege. How dare McCain distort Obama's words, record, positions. He will tell us tomorrow what he thinks tomorrow. He will wake up, have a cup of coffee and a cigarette, and decide what the position du jour is for that given day. Then again, maybe after lunch his "people" will state (as the did on the DC gun case) that "maybe" that's not exactly his position. I guess it depends on which direction the wind is blowing. Out of Chicago for sure where he learned his "new kind of politics" skills.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:31:21 PM

      Comment: You've got it just a little wrong. With a few exceptions Obama's positions are consistent.
      On Monday Republicans will distort his position one way.
      On Tuesday Republicans will distort his position a different way.
      On Wednesday Republicans will complain that he has switched from the one he had on Sunday, to the one they distorted on Monday, to the one they distorted on Tuesday, and finally back to the one he held all along.
      They'll then call him a flip-flopper and play FOX (Make it up as you go) News sound bytes that take statements out of context.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:16:45 PM

      Comment: AHHH FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SEES OBAMA AS HE IS !!!!! THOUGHT I WAS ALONE HERE ON THE LEFT WEB NEWS SITE !!!

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:53:38 PM

    Comment: TYLER - The price of oil swelled to another record high Monday morning - before dropping back. It almost hit $140 a barrel - but then fell 25 cents. It appears - a recent increase in oil output from Saudi Arabia -- is not driving down crude prices. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who started a bipartisan group called "American Solutions for Winning the Future" held little back at the Texas Republican Convention. He wants to use American solutions to change to the U.S. energy policy.

    Simply put - he's fed up with Congress: "The problem is not big oil or the foreigners," said Speaker Gingrich. "The problem is not the Saudis. The problem is getting Congress to do it's job." And that job, he says, is to start using the energy we have. "Congress outlaws every conceivable energy source," said Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich is making his case for domestic drilling by launching a campaign with Actor Chuck Norris, with the slogan: "Drill here, Drill now, Pay less." The campaign is urging Congress to do something now to bring down gas prices. Speaker Gingrich also has thoughts on speculators. "It's people who are betting the U.S. is too dumb to produce (its own oil)."


    He sides with East Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert -- when it comes to speculators and drilling. "If you began selling off two million barrels a day...we can pump out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would immediately bring down the price of oil." Speaker Gingrich proposes selling off half of the reserve - now. "Do it suddenly..without telling anybody in advance and punish every speculator."The very speculators, he says, that are betting against America."

    GO TO WWW.AMERICANSOLUTIONS.COM AND SIGN THE PETITION !!!

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:24:11 PM

      Comment: I wondered who Louie Gohmert was.
      He is in the 1st Texas congressional district, and who does he represent?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Texas_oil_field
      http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2008/06/17/the-big-oil-civil-war-of-louie-gohmert/
      Apparently he works for the oil companies.
      Yeah right! Big oil is not the problem?.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:12:31 PM

      Comment: Gengrich can get mad all he wants. What's he going to do when those wells run dry? Drill more? Most of the oil is not here it's elsewhere.
      He's right congress shuts down all America's energy sources.
      Well Mr. Gengrich, those of us who have been working on the problems despite the lack of government help, wouldn't mind a significant investment in alternative energy RIGHT NOW.

      How about we just ask him what we'll do when the next set of wells run dry. Then instead we'll do that now. Then we'll be ahead of the game.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:17:46 PM

        Comment: SO YOUR SAYING YOUR SMARTER THAN NEWT ???

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 3:24:09 PM

          Comment: I'm saying his motivations are likely in the wrong place.
          He's wrong to think that allowing oil companies to drill for more oil in different places than they are now, will not change the price of gas any more than it has in the last 30 years.

          I don't know if the problem is intelligence, lack of knowlege, or the money the oil companies are paying him, so I won't make a judgement on how smart he is.
          http://www.netnewspublisher.com/pandering-to-big-oil-political-opinion/

          I'll just say that he never struck as one of the brightest minds, but his bigger issues are probably more to do with ethics than smarts.

          But I'll say this


  • Posted By: Dan Cohen @ 06/27/2008 3:24:41 PM

    Comment: Where have you Morons been for the last 7 and a half years?????? Corrupting leadership of the Democrats?!?!?!? Are you that much of a moron, or do you live under a rock??? Haven't you Morons seen what the wonderful leadership of Cheney and Bush or Bush and Cheney!!! Open your eyes, put on the news, ask your neighbor to read you the newspaper about the wonderful economy. Get on your bicycle with the training wheels and take a ride to the local gas station. If you don't know what that is, ask a friend who can explain where you can find one. Once you get there, ask the man or woman filling up the tank what they think of the price of gas. You do know what money is????? Wake up and smell the flowers and not the cow manure that you probably smell. Follow your lead???????? What lead???? Better yet, please crawl back under the rock you have been under for the last 7 plus years!!!!!!

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:45:12 PM

      Comment: YOUR THE DAMN MORON THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN GREAT FOR 6 1/2 YEARS LOW UNEMPLOYMENT LOW TAXES BUT THEN THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS GOT IN AND THINGS TURNED TO *** THEM TRYING TO BLOAT BILLS WITH PORK AND BUSH VETOED THEM AND NOTHING GOT THROUGH ! SO DON'T BLAME THE REPUBS FOR THE ECONOMY WE WILL TAKE CRAP ABOUT THE WAR BUT THE ECONOMY IS THE DEMS FAULT !!!

      • Posted By: troyola @ 06/27/2008 4:10:35 PM

        Comment: the war is what hurt the economy. how simple are you

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:03:10 PM

        Comment: The economy is a result of problems since 2000. That's when the real estate problems began.
        The economy is a result of energy problems that have been around since the 70's, and largely ignored since 1980.
        Even if you choose only to look at symptoms, as you seem to want to do, gas prices started jumping in 2002. There is not one thing that the Dem.s did to cause the problem.

        Perhaps if you'd like to look at the actual cause of the problems, you'll come back to reality. Can you explain the downfall of the economy? Can you site something that caused it. Just because Republican's lost control of congress in 2006 does not mean you can blame a thing on Dem.s

        You can't split the congress 50/50 put a Republican in as President, and then blame everything on the Dem.s. It just doesn't work that way.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:04:06 PM

    Comment: Americans can not and will not follow the corrupting leadership of the Democrat???s Pied Piper. We are now at war, and I am not only referring to the one that we are engaging around the world against foreign enemies, but the one that we must all wage today to protect our homeland from those who wish to harm it from within. This reality cannot be escaped by any of us, and we have a responsibility and duty to fight it until the end. Barack Obama can not win the Presidency of the United States, unless we wish our Nation harm. The line has been drawn in the sand, and we are definitely staring into the heart of darkness that the radical left wing of the Democratic Party has in store for all of those who do not conform. They have already proven that their main objective is to bring a new era of anti-White racism, institutionalized sexism, self inflicted ignorance, reality-show messianic pretensions, and utter submission to corporate interests. For these reasons, I will NOT allow these people to achieve victory, for in their success we will all find our doom, and I expect many of you to follow my lead.

    • Posted By: troyola @ 06/27/2008 3:14:40 PM

      Comment: you are really delusional. if you have something intellient to say then say it. your rants only make you look stupid and bring into question the credibility of the people who you support. the problems that now exist in our country was started before obama and will be here long after he is gone. the only way to fight is to educate ourselves. ignorance begets ignorance as you have shown.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:58:07 PM

    Comment: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:10:57
    Comment: You Morons need history lessons. Carter had solar panels installed atop the white house in attempt to ally the nation with clean energy. The Regan administration and its ties to oil literally had them removed..

    Yes, this really happened.

    Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 14:53:39
    Comment: HE ALSO HAD BILLY BEER ON TAP BUT THAT SUCKED TOO SO REGAN HAD BOTH OF THEM REMOVED AT THE TIME THE SOLAR PANELS DID NOT WORK WELL AND WERE CAUSING PROBLEMS WITH WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS WE DID NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT LOOK NOW THERE ARE SOME THERE FROM THE BUSH ADMID !! IN 2002 SO THERE'S A LIE FROM THE LEFT ALSO ECO PEOPLE WANTED TO INSTALL SOLAR LIGHTING FOR THE GARDENS AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT CLINTON SAID NO !! BUT BUSH HAD THEM INSTALLED NOW THE WHITE HOUSE DON'T USE ANY ELECTRIC FOR LIGHTS HOT WATER OR SECURITY !!!

    Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 14:55:36
    Comment: TRY LOOKING STUFF UP YOU DUMB ASS LEFTIST LIBERAL LIAR !!! P.S. ITS CALLED GOOGLE !!!

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:21:23 PM

      Comment: Also your calling them the "Eco" people pretty much sums up your commitment to really fixing any of our energy problems.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:18:39 PM

      Comment: There was no lie from the left. Look it up! Reagan pulled them off. Don't be dumb.

      I'm sorry, but just putting solar panels up and calling it good in 2002 does not make for an energy policy.
      It also doesn't make up for starting the war with Iraq, or posing the drill for more oil energy policy.

      And you belittling people doesn't fix anything either. If you think so highly of Google, how about using it to fact check some of your posts before you put them up.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:27:54 PM

        Comment: I KNOW REGAN PULLED THEM OFF I SAID THAT ! IF WE DRILL OUR OWN OIL THAT WOULD MAKE US INDEPENDENT FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL IF WE START NOW AND USE THE PROFITS FOR WIND SOLAR AND NUCLEAR THEN WE WOULD BE OFF OIL IN 10-12 YRS AND BE GREEN FROM THEN ON BUT WAIT THE LIBERALS WON'T LET US SO WE HAVE TO PAY HIGH PRICES TILL THEN !!!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:54:02 PM

          Comment: "I KNOW REGAN PULLED THEM OFF I SAID THAT !" - But you also called it a lie from the left.
          " IF WE DRILL OUR OWN OIL" - Then in about 10 years we would see that oil.
          Are you saying we would get protectionist against the Oil companies? Never heard that from a Republican before. Usually it's just the free market will take care of us as long as we place no restrictions (Laws) on companies thus freeing them to maximise profit.
          In that environment, the oil we drill will be obtained by private companies not the government. WE DON'T GET TO PUT ANYTHING TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY WITHOUT PRYING IT OUT OF THE STUPID OIL COMPANY. Futhermore they sell to the highest bidder, and according to the traders that is China, so in 10 years we'll be exactly where we are now!.

          "Liberals" will let us go green, and we can do it alot quicker than we would if we wait 10 years for Exon to put oil wells on all of our wilderness areas and coastlines. It's expensive now only because the government, mainly the Republicans, has been unwilling to put any money into infrastructure for alternative energies.

          A massive investment of the kind that was made on the Iraq war would rid us of our dependence on oil period; not just foreign oil.

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:04:36 PM

            Comment: THATS WHAT I'M SAYING TOO JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT LOOK IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DRILL OFF SHORE WHERE THERE IS OIL THEN WE COULD HAVE OIL FROM THERE IN LESS THAN A YEAR IF CONGRESS WOULD CUT THE RED TAPE THEN OIL MIGHT GO UP A LITTLE FOR SAY ABOUT TWO MONTHS BECAUSE BIG OIL WOULD TRY TO CORNER THE MARKET WELL ALL THE U.S. GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO IS OPEN UP THE STRATEGIC RESERVES AND BAM THE PRICE WOULD DROP AND WE WOULD START TO REAP THE BENIES OF BEING INDEPENDANT AND START USEING THE SURPLUS OF MONEY TO BUILD UP OUR ALT ENERGY PLAN !!

            • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 5:05:03 PM

              Comment: "LOOK IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DRILL OFF SHORE WHERE THERE IS OIL THEN WE COULD HAVE OIL FROM THERE IN LESS THAN A YEAR" - No. Exon or Texaco or BP would have the oil. They would sell it to China or whoever pays top dollar.
              "ALL THE U.S. GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO IS OPEN UP THE STRATEGIC RESERVES AND BAM THE PRICE WOULD DROP" - We've tried it before and a price drop is not what we've seen, more like short term stabilization.
              "WE WOULD START TO REAP THE BENIES OF BEING INDEPENDANT "
              Benies of being independent? We'd still be dependent on oil. The world demand for oil is still increasing. We still have a relatively small amount of the oil compared to places like the middle east and asia. And the oil is still running out. There is no independence.
              "AND START USEING THE SURPLUS OF MONEY TO BUILD UP OUR ALT ENERGY PLAN !!" - at the end of this the only ones with money are Texaco, Exon, British Petroleum, and the other PRIVATE companies that pumped the oil. WE would not have a surplus. The multinational corporations would have a surplus, but they have that NOW.
              WE would have have just bought more oil/gas from them. Our alternative energy companies would still be there trying to sell stuff where there is no infrastructure to support a market because all our government did is say "Yes you may drill on our protected lands."

              What WE get out of that is a few more oil wells to look at..

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:44:58 PM

    Comment: NEWS FLASH LARRY SINCLAIR AND BARACK OBAMA WILL WED IN CALIFORNIA HILLARY WILL WALK OBAMA DOWN THE ASLIE GUESS OBAMA REALLY LIKED THE HUMMER !!!

  • Posted By: Tom E @ 06/27/2008 1:45:44 PM

    Comment: The only thing that is misleading and dishonest is Sen. Obama's claim that he supports nuclear energy. Obama is trying to have it both ways ??? voicing tepid support while placing so many preconditions so as to make the construction of new plants impractical. The reality is that Obama does not support construction of new nuclear power plants and Sen. McCain???s claim is exactly right.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 2:31:06 PM

      Comment: Your claim is only accurate if Nuclear power plants can not be built so that they are clean and safe. Are you saying that McCain is willing to build plants that cause radiation exposure problems?

      You're statement is just flat wrong. Obama supports clean safe nuclear energy, but not the old style plants that cause safety concerns and radioactive material disposal problems.

      McCain is distorting Obama's position on that point.
      If McCain would qualify his statement and say that Obama does not support Nuclear reactors with safety problems and waste disposal problems, only then would he be accurate.
      This point has been explained repeatedly. If McCain continues to do it, then it isn't just a misrepresentation. It's a lie. Not that anybody else seems to care about that.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:32:09 PM

        Comment: WE WON'T BUILD OLD UNSAFE PLANTS WE WOULD BUILD NEW HIGH TECH PLANTS THAT ARE SAFE AND ALL OF THE NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THE U.S. HAVE ALREADY BEEN RETRO FITTED WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY SO THEY ARE VERY SAFE TO EVERYTHING THERE IS COMPUTER CONTROLED AND HAS 3 BACK UP SYSTEMS SO THAT THEY ARE FAIL SAFE AND WILL SHUT DOWN SAFELY IF EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF RADIATION IS BEING DETECTED !!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 5:32:14 PM

          Comment: You didn't address the radioactive waste disposal, but if those designs exist and can be shown to be safe, and you can address the waste disposal problem, then you're talking about the Nuclear reactors that Obama supports. His support is conditional on those two things.

          There are possibilities for the 3-4 tonnes of waste per reactor per year, that involve reprocessing through breeder reactors which can produce weapons grade plutonium and somehow must be kept from falling into the wrong hands. As it is current reactors produce significant amounts of waste per year that will remain dangerous for 100's or 1000's of years. This is the main problem.

          Mostly it's the lack of volunteers to house the waste until something can be done to make it safe.

  • Posted By: Igiveup @ 06/27/2008 12:12:12 PM

    Comment: John Mexico McCain is not a natural born citizen!

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 2:31:07 PM

      Comment: McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. Children born to parents stationed overseas generally have to file some paperwork showing their parents are US citizens, most military hospitals today make it part of the check out procedure. As for McCain's birth Title 8, section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to children born in the Canal Zone with one parent who is a US citizen. As the constitution does not define the term ???natural born citizen??? if confers on Congress the power to establish a uniform ???Rule of Naturalization???.

  • Posted By: Pittsburgh @ 06/27/2008 12:01:27 PM

    Comment: apjames: I agree. People who hate (on either side) don't really care about minor details such as facts. Maybe its because I'm from Pittsburgh, but I don't like blogs where its just people showing how mean and hateful they can be. It really shows the level of intelligence you're dealing with.......when all is said and done I think most Americans are thirsty for some good stuff.

  • Posted By: apjames@wisc.edu @ 06/27/2008 11:54:37 AM

    Comment: "Willnotvoteforobama"... Copy/paste comments I suppose are the hallmark of the internet campaign, but it's still a bit ridiculous. Don't you have an original thought? Did you read the article? I suppose not.

    McCain is weak on energy and weak on national security because he doesn't understand the changing world. That his commercial references a movie from 1962 is an interesting note. He doesn't get nuance. Perhaps he used to. Maybe it's the base. I think part of it is pretend. Nuance doesn't sell to the GOP.

  • Posted By: Pittsburgh @ 06/27/2008 11:53:27 AM

    Comment: I JUST SAW A CLIP OF OBAMA & CLINTON ON THE PLANE---this is pretty darn exciting, and no, I'm not a young voter, probably older than most of the posters. I like him. I think they'll do a lot of good.

  • Posted By: Pittsburgh @ 06/27/2008 11:49:47 AM

    Comment: Distorting Obama ---- What else is new? If you can't beat 'em just keep repeating same old attacks. If anyone thinks Obama is all talk, they're not listening and have already made up their minds. I've always respected McCain, but he WILL: continue the Bush mistakes, blunders and DISASTEROUS terms!!

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 10:28:57 AM

    Comment: Obama all CHANGE all the time:

    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
    CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
    CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
    CHANGE ... the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
    CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
    CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
    CHANGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to
    CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
    CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
    CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
    CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
    CHANGE ... my pastor's screed is OK, yours isn't
    CHANGE ... FISA line that we crossed but I have now moved back
    CHANGE ... from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
    CHANGE ... I'll debate John McCain anytime, anywhere; except when and where he asks me.
    CHANGE ... the words of others and claim they're mine, because words count.
    CHANGE ... the meaning of Bible verses to meet my own liberal world view
    CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
    CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
    CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
    CHANGE ... into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
    CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
    CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
    CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
    CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic foreign policy skills
    CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have prepared speech to read.
    CHANGE ... historical facts to agree with my life story
    CHANGE ... I said the DC gun ban was constitutional, but now I agree with Supreme Court ruling it unconstituional.
    CHANGE ... what I said because my rhetoric was overheated and amplified
    CHANGE ... but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite, CHANGE is for YOU.
    CHANGE ... anything and everything I've said or done in my life if it will help me win
    CHANGE ... the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
    CHANGE ... I can CHANGE when it suits me
    CHANGE ... you can believe in for a day or two
    CHANGE ... you can't keep up with
    CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... YOU better freaking BELIEVE IN because it will WORK YOU over.
    Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:09:01 PM

      Comment: You should take up a hobby before you compile anymore lists, like figuring out which John Mcccain you like better - Mccain 2000 or Mccain 2008, cause they disagree on EVERYTHING.

      Oh, and the good psych drilling and fake ass tax holidays.....
      Between Economists LAUGHING at such a stupid 18 cents idea, and Gov Schwarzenegger calling Mccain out on that bullspit drilling crap, Obama doesn't even have to reiterate.

      Look into that.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:46:17 PM

        Comment: HOPE YOU CAN AFFORD 10.00 FOR A GALLON OF GAS BECAUSE I CAN !!!!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:50:03 AM

          Comment: I guess that explains your support for McCain

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 9:34:45 AM

    Comment: mr.barack hussein osama will change at the drop of a hat thats his platform change what all you obamanics don't understand is this is what he's gonna do in the white house too (if he gets elected )he will change positions on all the stuff you support him on he's against drilling for oil but bet your last dollar that if he makes it to the white house he will sign a bill to drill for oil he flips on everything rev wright d.c.gun law ect. change he will change in 10 yrs he just might want to be a republican !!!lol thats after he pisses off all the liberals on the left his own pastor the rev wright said it (he is a politican and will say anything to get elected ) take that at face value rev wright didn't back down in the mist of all his public rants i have more respect for wright than osama err obama !!!

  • Posted By: waterman @ 06/27/2008 6:34:37 AM

    Comment: "Visionary Leader", ayo5558, are you on crack? Obama can't hold a position on anything without flip flopping. He has no understanding of the free market system or how to fix problems. His plans call for trillions of dollars in new taxes. You gonna pay for that? 15 to 30 years to get oil, get real. Just announcing we are going to drill will lower the price of oil and American ingenuity will get the oil to the market in a few years. With new technology we won't hurt your environment. Your precious Democrats are the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Clinton blocked drilling in Anwar. Congress blocks any progress to getting the oil. Yes, our economy runs on oil, like it or not. It is the real world, not Fantasy Land. By the way, the country isn't quite as broken as you would like to believe. We have been safe from terrorist attacks for seven years, had good economic growth, until recently. Our problems now are the result of a Democratically controlled congress with a 12% approval rating. By those standards, Bush is doing a pretty good job.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 9:08:28 AM

      Comment: Obama holds plenty of positions without flip flopping. He hased changed his mind on some issues, but most of the "flip-flopping" can only be asserted by distorting his current or original view on the issue.

      He has a better understanding of the free market system than most as evidenced by his catch on the Gas Tax Holiday gimick which further indicates John McCain's, by his own admission, lack of understanding of the same.

      His plans DO NOT call for trillions of dollars in new taxes. You're either exagerating or clearly confused here. They do call for taxes, and they must in order to pay for fixing the problems that have built up over the years. ITS CALLED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!

      Somebody has to pay for it. We can't keep on borrowing ourselves into oblivion as the Republicans like to do.

      Just announcing we are going to drill will NOT lower the price of oil. American ingenuity could have had us OFF of oil if we had just started focussing on that back in the 70's and 80's. Drilling for more oil will not fix the problem. It avoids dealing with the problem.

      Republicans have had their head in the sand regarding energy problems for 30 years. You can't blame the Democrats.. There are not enough Democrats in congress to override the others and the President, and that is the problem. You can't spin your way out of the fact that laws won't get passed without a President's signature.

      You're right our economy runs on oii, and that's the reality. ITS ALSO THE PROBLEM AND HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!

      • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:55:39 AM

        Comment: Ok,, we should of started 30 years ago that would have been 1978 with a Democrat dominated Congress and Jimmy Carter as President how can you say Democrats can't be blamed. This is the problem with politics right now, it's all the other sides fault for not fixing it. Sorry both parties have done nothing to resolve the energy problem we have faced from 1973 on and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:03:26 PM

          Comment: You're right Carter didn't manage to solve all the energy problems in the 4 years he was President, but he tried to go in the right direction while Republicans complained about spending and raising taxes.
          Sorry, but you can't blame it on Carter either. He tried to push us in the right direction creating the Department of Energy and promoted energy conservation efforts. It wasn't enough, but it was a start.

          Republicans have stood in the way of new energy policy. It wasn't just them. Car and oil companies have all done their part, but you can't blame them for the lack of inaction by the government. Republicans though have clearly stood in the way, and their just drill for more oil solutions are part of the problem. As long as drill more continues to be the Republican solution, we can blame the Republicans, not for everything, but for their role.



        • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:10:57 PM

          Comment: You Morons need history lessons. Carter had solar panels installed atop the white house in attempt to ally the nation with clean energy. The Regan administration and its ties to oil literally had them removed..

          Yes, this really happened.

          • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 3:12:07 PM

            Comment: Great in the two years Jan 77 to Jan 79 of the 95th Congress all that the Carter administration could accomplish was to install solar panels on the White House, create a huge government bureaucracy responsible for energy policy and nuclear safety, and pass the National Energy Conservation Act. With a Filibuster proof Senate and a House advantage of 159 seats you think the Democrats would of accomplished something that might of developed new energy but $600 dollar tax breaks for installing solar panels and raising fuel efficiency by taxing car manufactures for selling gas guzzlers seems to all they could agree on. Don???t get me wrong I don???t think Republicans have done even that much but to sit here in 2008 and say that it???s all the fault of one or the other is stupid. Unless Americans make hard choices now on energy development, fuel efficiency, and the taxes to pay for these developments nothing will happen. Taxing windfall profits of oil companies and gas tax rebates are not going to due anything other then race down the same dead end we have been on.

            • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:21:18 AM

              Comment: Carter did alot more than that, but there's only so much you can do without the support of the people, and people were still arguing about whether there was even a problem. Our country became alot more efficient. It didn't address all the problems, but drilling for more oil has not done a thing.

              Republican energy and economic policy has been a huge problem. Ignoring that will not help things either. It isn't time to sit their and blame people, but it is time to recognize where the problems are, and that means looking back at where the obstacles have been. Why are we not using wind and solar to their full potential? Why do we not have electric cars out there? Why do we still not have hydrogen cars out there? Why have we not solved the nuclear waste problem?

              And by looking at where the problems are I don't mean associating symptoms with people in office. I mean looking at actual bills brought up in congress. Who stood in the way of them and why? In doing so, it is clear that oil companies have had too much influence in this stuff. It is also clear that Republicans in general seem to have been against alternative energy in the past. I don't know why. I suspect many of them represent big oil or possibly auto manufacturers, but it is clear that the policies they have been pushing have gotten in the way of a conversion away from gas/oil.

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:53:39 PM

            Comment: HE ALSO HAD BILLY BEER ON TAP BUT THAT SUCKED TOO SO REGAN HAD BOTH OF THEM REMOVED AT THE TIME THE SOLAR PANELS DID NOT WORK WELL AND WERE CAUSING PROBLEMS WITH WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS WE DID NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT LOOK NOW THERE ARE SOME THERE FROM THE BUSH ADMID !! IN 2002 SO THERE'S A LIE FROM THE LEFT ALSO ECO PEOPLE WANTED TO INSTALL SOLAR LIGHTING FOR THE GARDENS AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT CLINTON SAID NO !! BUT BUSH HAD THEM INSTALLED NOW THE WHITE HOUSE DON'T USE ANY ELECTRIC FOR LIGHTS HOT WATER OR SECURITY !!!

            • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:55:36 PM

              Comment: TRY LOOKING STUFF UP YOU DUMB ASS LEFTIST LIBERAL LIAR !!! P.S. ITS CALLED GOOGLE !!!

    • Posted By: mmcgee @ 06/27/2008 9:02:44 AM

      Comment: Sorry to inform you of this but it is McCain who "flip-flops" on an almost daily basis. We aren't dealing with McCain 2000 we are dealing with an inconsistent Mcflipflop in 2008. Mcflipflop has proposed a dramatic increase in spending while cutting taxes to the rich further increasing the nations debt burden beyond it's current 9 trillion. You are going to eventually pay for that. As for 15-30 years to get oil from new drilling to the market, yes it is real. It takes years just to order and build the equipment, to find the oil. So yeah get real. 15-30 years, numbers from the current energy department btw.
      In your reference to claim we have been free from terrorist attacks for the last 7 years, you might want to take a look at history. If you don't count McVeigh then we where free from terrorist attacks for over 200 years prior. One event cannot be used to establish a chain. The attack occurred under the current presidents watch while he had full knowledge that an attack was being planned and underway.
      For the democratically controlled congress, you do realize that your statement is somewhat misleading. It is essentially a 50/50 split with an independent Leiberman giving them their supposed majority and he has been voting with republicans lately.
      Any democratic bill that gets pushed gets vetoed and voted down by republicans.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 06/27/2008 5:16:42 AM

    Comment: Here you go again with that old, dried and worn-out arguments about "experience". Hillary tried and we know what good it did her!!!. Now is Mccain's turn and again the voters will see through and reject this "all-embracing myth" of McCain experience!!!.
    McCain's experience, how laughable.McCain couldn't differenciate between a sunni and a shia, his arch enemies more than four times and he had to be corrected by Senator Liberman, a democrat!!!. Then the question that begs to be posed is what does McCain really knows???. Nothing!!!.
    McCain was just a foot soldier not a general. Worst, he was the worst pilot ever sent for a mission he didn't complete.Such a soldier in Roman times will be shot not revered!!!.
    More to the point of experience, is the undeniable fact that Mccain is "untested" and "unprovened" as a chief executive nor has ever managed even a platoon, ever been a city mayor, a governor, a secretary of state or defense or a president!!!. Where on earth does he claim these executive experience???. Former European Supreme commander, general Clark said qoute, "Mccain is untested and unprovened" as a chief executive. as far as executive experience is concerned, McCain like Hillary like Obama has nothing to offer.They all offer legislative as opposed to executive experience. And we all know from bitter experience what "experience" means and worth. George Bush had all the executive experience as a governor and what did he do with that experience???. A broken economy, broken military, unending war, the largest deficits in American history, and a highly demoralised Nation!!!.
    Obama is not running on "experience" but "smart and sound judgement". And he has provened that in the democratic primary.Contrary to sclang claims, whom by the way is just an illiterate moron, Obama's legislative records ranging from nuclear non-proliferation, guns control, death penalty, pro-choice, immigration reform, veteran rights, energy independence, etc are qualitatively superior to that of Mccain.All independent experts aggree Obama is unique and exceptional and visionary leader!!!.
    Common give us a break. Democracy means the party that mess up is the party that get its butts kicked out of office. Who is Mccain and the republicans trying to fool???. Nobody but themselves!!!.
    All he really has to offer is legislative experience as a senator!!!. How many USA senators have become very successful and great presidents???. Lincoln and JFK.

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:34:57 AM

      Comment: Ayoss58 you might want to try reading up on US Presidents, Lincoln was never a senator and as for successful Presidents that were senators how about Monroe, Jackson, Truman and Johnson. As for comparing McCain to a soldier in the Roman armies, please the sitting Consul commanded the Army under the Republic and you had who ever was elected commanding armies in the field. In the case of a Marius or Caesar it worked wonderfully but with a Caepio or Mallius a disaster. I believe McCain commanded a training squadron at Cecil Field, which would have given him some executive training

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:34:11 AM

      Comment: Ayoss58 you might want to try reading up on US Presidents, Lincoln was never a senator and as for successful Presidents that were senators how about Monroe, Jackson, Truman and Johnson. As for comparing McCain to a soldier in the Roman armies, please the sitting Consul commanded the Army under the Republic and you had who ever was elected commanding armies in the field. In the case of a Marius or Caesar it worked wonderfully but with a Caepio or Mallius a disaster. I believe McCain commanded a training squadron at Cecil Field, which would have given him some executive training

      • Posted By: Mimi13 @ 06/27/2008 1:11:44 PM

        Comment: I can't find anything in McCain's bio to indicate that he led a training squad. At Cecil, he was in training himself on A-4 Skyhawks. He spent most his time at Pennsacola partying with "Marie the Flame of Florida" an exotic dancer. His class rank was lowered (5th from the bottom) at Annapolis not only because of poor grades, but also because of bad conduct and poor leadership qualities. When he became an Naval aviator, he was so slipshod about training that he crashed two planes and got tangled up in power lines once. There is nothing in this man's background to indicate that he has the ability, the intelligence, the curiosity of mind, the intellectual perserverance to think through a problem to be the leader of the United States. His one heroic act -- refusing repatriation ahead of POWs who had been held longer by the Viet Cong -- is a great one and he deserves all the honor he received for personal valor. But -- he is NOT a leader. There is very little in his life that he achieved on his own. His Navy career was an outgrowth of the careers of his father and grandfather. His political career comes courtesy of the financial backing of his wife and father-in-law. As a legislator, he has essentially been a loner, which is a good thing in one way because he has had bi-partisan support on some bills. But it shows no ability to manage an organization.
        And given his age, and his obvious need to take weekend breaks (think of Reagan's naps), there is no way McCain is up to what is arguably the most stressful job in the world

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 06/27/2008 4:09:31 AM

    Comment: This is a make or break election and we must be critical of the attack ads and spins of each campaign less we regret like we did with Bush!!!.
    First Mccain's proposals to achieve energy independence are:1) to drill, drill, drill on protected wildlife refuge areas, all federal lands and on off-shore.2) develop powerful battery to power electric cars.Build 45 to 100 nuclear power plants. Very long and impressive policy proposal list to the uninformed, economically and politically illiterate!!!.
    First, drill here, drill there, drill everywhere was George Bush policy and we all know what we achieved with that.Nothing close to energy independence!!!. Even if Mccain's policy is implemented NOW; it will take the USA between 15 to 30 years to bring any of his oil drilling online.Even then the new USA production will not make a dent or much difference on gas prices now or in the future.But we would have destroyed the last environmentally protected areas and our beautiful coastal areas.Has Mccain ever thought of the environmental and societal costs of these irresponsible policy???. Worst of all, what then will we offer and to children and grandchildren???. How irresponsible can a desparate candidate go.Mccain is alll a league onto himself!!!.
    Build unsafe and unclean 45 to 100 nuclear plants. But that will not lower gas prices.Worst we will be stuck with unsafe and unclean nuclear plants long after Mccain is dead. Remember the near melt-down at long Island in Pennsylvania.We were very lucky.And remember the Soviet Union Cherobly, they were not very lucky and we know the environmental and humanitarian costs of having irresponsible leaders like those in the Soviet Union.They believed and had the same "mind-set" and "disregard" for "policy rooted in good science". My God $300 million bounty for a battery?. Suppose a Japanese or Chinese scientist come up with that battery, will Mccain pay up???. The old republican goat is losing his old mind.He's illusionating and imaging things. America doesnt have the oil reserves to talk of oil independence.It doesn't matter whether we drill ourselves to oblivion!!!.
    However, the correct understanding of energy independence means the USA must "diversify" into alternative energy sources like green energy:ethonol, bio-diesal, electric, wind, solar, coal and nuclear. The catch-word is "diversity and mix" of alternative energy sources!!!.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 9:51:49 AM

      Comment: mr. barack supporter what happened to YES WE CAN ????

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 9:50:12 AM

      Comment: your so full of chit your eyes are brown !!!!

  • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:46:17 AM

    Comment: Mccain is on the ropes! First round, this guy is trying to at least make it to the bell!

  • Posted By: Just.thomas @ 06/26/2008 11:41:44 PM

    Comment: People. If you dont like Obama, Please vote fore Sen. MaCain so that we will have continuious tax cut and benefits to the rich, make you avarage to work sooo hard and squeeze all tax from you. MaCCain Promised, that he will bring troops from Iraq. That is true. But he did not tell you that he will send your children back to middle east to fight against Iran which is ten times or more militarily as well as weapon, powerful than Iraq, while your kids fighting in war, He will make sure that all the kids of the congress men, senators and kids of super rich will be serving in Harvard, Yale and Oxford.

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/26/2008 9:49:04 PM

    Comment: Haven't we all heard enough use of 'Flipp Flopper'? I heard it so often during the last two elections that it makes me want to *uke everytime someone uses that inane comment. Are we so bereft of imagination to use a different term?

    Please, reinvent or wordsmith that cliche so I stay long enough to read your comments.

    • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:32:30 AM

      Comment: Indian-Thinker.
      Cootie - Head.
      WHatever the puppeteer says, I'm with that.
      Uh,Uh...I didn't take my pills this morning I forgot.....

      I got a few more....

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/26/2008 9:40:52 PM

    Comment: I envision the quest for viable alternative energy sources requiring a government commitment similar to President Kennedy's goal to put man on the moon by the end of the decade.

    Too much governmental interference into a free economy is bad but there are times when it is necessary. I think our energy problem is quickly going to become too serious to leave up to the free market for a solution.

    I propose a NASA agency charged with developing a viable alternative for fossil fuel within ten years. It may require additional taxation but look at the amount that we are spending now just to subsidize ethanol production.

    We could explore new battery technology or the liquification of coal or whatever but I am sure that there is freedom from the middle-east oil sheiks. It would almost be worth it to just be in a position to tell OPEC to stuff it knowing that we no longer needed to rely on any foreign power for our sources of energy.

    Pollyanna thinking? Perhaps but I do think there is a solution and that the technology lies within the boundaries of the United States and that a government/ private industry partnership can find it within ten years.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 9:29:16 AM

      Comment: I remember hearing a comment similar back in the 70's. Back then most Republicans were saying that we didn't have an energy problem, that we just needed to drill for more oil, and the whole idea of running out of oil was rediculous. Global warming was a crack pot theory.

      30 years later... same problems... same solutions from the Republicans.
      You'd think that 30 years later, we'd be wanting to SOLVE the problem, but still Republicans want to "just drill for more oil".

    • Posted By: whala @ 06/27/2008 12:05:24 AM

      Comment: Did you read my post? My proposal would have us off of foriegn oil within 10 years, would have viable alternatives developed within 10 years, would provide ALL US oil consumption after 10 years during the phase in period of the alternatives, and would be entirely funded by revenue from selling oil from our strategic reserves. What more can we ask for?

  • Posted By: Belker @ 06/26/2008 9:32:04 PM

    Comment:

    Anything through Newsweek has to be pro Obama and anti McCain just as it was pro O and anti-Hillary.

    Nothing new here. Just the same old one slided slamming by Newsweek!

    • Posted By: itsjustanillusion @ 06/27/2008 12:10:37 PM

      Comment: What a pity. People just can't handle the truth.

      OBAMA 08'

    • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:35:06 AM

      Comment: Well, actually, Factcheck.org had a piece up not to long ago about where Obama mischaracterized something Mccain said.

      But it's not Obama's fault if he has a lot of positive things to point out.

      Don't hate me cause I'm special.

    • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/27/2008 12:48:27 AM

      Comment: IIf the TRUTH doesn't FITS you ,perharps John MCClown LIES fits you then

  • Posted By: Belker @ 06/26/2008 9:31:57 PM

    Comment:

    Anything through Newsweek has to be pro Obama and anti McCain just as it was pro O and anti-Hillary.

    Nothing new here. Just the same old one slided slamming by Newsweek!

    • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:13:59 PM

      Comment: It's factcheck.org you idiot.

      The righties are in such painful denial, its such a joy!

  • Posted By: gcomeau @ 06/26/2008 9:18:39 PM

    Comment: The YouTube comments for this ad are hilarious. Half the respondents think it's a GREAT ad... for Obama. The first two things it does is repeat Obama's entirely legitimate criticisms of McCain's gas tax and offshore drilling pandering nonsense. Then to top it off, all the visuals make Obama look... *good*. The Obama campaign should be sending these guys payment for their work.

    Then there's the other people who just think "Dr. NO? Wasn't that like... four and a half DECADES ago? How old *is* this guy?" The majority of the people who are going to see this on YouTube weren't even born when that movie came out. Brilliant move McCain crew. Just pure genius.

    • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:39:14 AM

      Comment: Oh, this is hilarious! I'm broke and discontent but I've never been into politics more.

      Mccain & Co. are really trying ANYTHING.

      They can't even make up there own campaign slogan. They keep using Obama's words.

      Pitiful. This guy is talking about what he's going to reform even though he agrees with our current gov'ts ideas. All he wants to do is cut money for anything that isn't big business, which is why the levees are in the condition they are in right now.

  • Posted By: whala @ 06/26/2008 8:52:19 PM

    Comment: John McCain does seem to be one to extrapolate interesting interpretations (aka gross exaggerations) out of the comments of others. He torpedoed Romney in the primaries with that tactic, and I thought it was pretty tacky.

    On the other hand, Obama's guarded "I would not rule out Nuclear" comment is not what I am looking for in a leader. It shows a lack of commitment and decisiveness. He seems to want us to wait until he is in office before he makes any real commitment on what he will do. Obama's plan to fund alternative energy research from decreased war spending, or by raising taxes on gasoline (indirectly through higher taxes on oil companies) doesn't make much sense to me. Once we do get out of Iraq, that money needs to go into reducing the debt we incurred as a result of the War.

    Of the two, McCain seems much more decisive on energy policy, and his plan better thought out, although the tax holiday is a pretty ridiculous idea.

    If one of these guys would come up with a plan to use energy revenue to develop future technology without costing the people more money, they would have my attention. Here's the plan to do just that. We can immediately begin releasing 2 million barrels of oil per day from our reserves, and use the income from that oil to fund our push for alternative energy. This will also relieve the current price pressure we are seeing at the pump. We could release oil at that rate for 10 years, and still maintain enough in reserve to replace our imports for 3 years at current import rates. During those 10 years, we move to eliminate foriegn dependence by drilling for our own oil. That way, we are off of foriegn oil in 10 years, and will have put hundreds of billions of dollars towards the development of cleaner and safer energy technology. We will once again lead the world in energy development. With such an effort, I am confident that by the end of the initial 10 years, we will have found ways to make alternative energy cost effective, and will be in a position to begin the very lengthy process of converting our society to the new energy sources.

    • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:17:23 PM

      Comment: McCain isn't more decisive when it comes to energy? Are you serious? Did you read this article? It clearly shows Obama had a thought out and articulated 150 b. package, when Mccain has rolled out a bunch of pander to the public nonsense .

      The GOP takes advantage of those not paying attention.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/26/2008 9:42:02 PM

      Comment: Obama's reservations about Nuclear are simply that it be clean and safe. It has nothing to do with getting in office, and everything to do with the the disposal issues.

      McCain's policies are in many cases rediculous.
      Gas Tax holiday for GAS COMPANIES not consumers.
      Drill for more oil (Same Republican answer since the 70's), and will do nothing to get us away from oil.
      Not a bad idea to give a prize for a battery for an electric car, but it is simply a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of resources that Obama planned to spend on this issue even before McCain popped this one out.
      Worst of all, distorting Obama's energy policy ideas shows that he is not serious about any of this. He doesn't want to talk intelligently about energy, he wants to decieve us on it.
      Distorting Obama's energy policy

  • Posted By: whala @ 06/26/2008 8:51:39 PM

    Comment: John McCain does seem to be one to extrapolate interesting interpretations (aka gross exaggerations) out of the comments of others. He torpedoed Romney in the primaries with that tactic, and I thought it was pretty tacky.

    On the other hand, Obama's guarded "I would not rule out Nuclear" comment is not what I am looking for in a leader. It shows a lack of commitment and decisiveness. He seems to want us to wait until he is in office before he makes any real commitment on what he will do. Obama's plan to fund alternative energy research from decreased war spending, or by raising taxes on gasoline (indirectly through higher taxes on oil companies) doesn't make much sense to me. Once we do get out of Iraq, that money needs to go into reducing the debt we incurred as a result of the War.

    Of the two, McCain seems much more decisive on energy policy, and his plan better thought out, although the tax holiday is a pretty ridiculous idea.

    If one of these guys would come up with a plan to use energy revenue to develop future technology without costing the people more money, they would have my attention. Here's the plan to do just that. We can immediately begin releasing 2 million barrels of oil per day from our reserves, and use the income from that oil to fund our push for alternative energy. This will also relieve the current price pressure we are seeing at the pump. We could release oil at that rate for 10 years, and still maintain enough in reserve to replace our imports for 3 years at current import rates. During those 10 years, we move to eliminate foriegn dependence by drilling for our own oil. That way, we are off of foriegn oil in 10 years, and will have put hundreds of billions of dollars towards the development of cleaner and safer energy technology. We will once again lead the world in energy development. With such an effort, I am confident that by the end of the initial 10 years, we will have found ways to make alternative energy cost effective, and will be in a position to begin the very lengthy process of converting our society to the new energy sources.