Waters’ slip, Obama’s quip, and the upcoming socialist trip

posted at 7:18 am on May 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Two quotes from yesterday highlight the stakes in this upcoming election better than any that have preceded it. One features a Democrat mistakenly revealing what she really wants, while the other shows a much more polished approach towards the same end. First, let’s review what Rep. Maxine Waters said to the president of Shell Oil during a House hearing:

“And guess what this member* would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”

Take a look at the video that AP posted last night while Waters says this. As soon as the word “socialization” exits her lips, she knows she made a big blunder, not the least of which is that the actual term is “nationalization”. Waters just declared a socialist policy of total confiscation in the House hearing room, and she looks for an exit strategy, finally winding up with the slightly more ambiguous idea of Washington “running” the oil companies. Two people in the background try mightily to stifle laughter at Waters’ predicament.

Waters provides the obvious example. Barack Obama tried the historically successful strategy of being generous with other people’s money in the debate over the GI Bill. Yesterday, he expressed puzzlement over why John McCain couldn’t be more generous to his fellow veterans, and McCain shot back in the wrong direction:

Obama used the opportunity to once again tie his rival to the president.

“I respect Sen. John McCain’s service to our country,” Obama said on the Senate floor this morning. “He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can’t believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue.”

The McCain campaign responded by issuing a sharply worded and lengthy statement in the senator’s name. McCain notes his support for an alternative to the Webb measure, but points out his own military service and points out Obama’s lack thereof.

“It is typical, but no less offensive that Sen. Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of,” McCain said in the statement. “Let me say first in response to Sen. Obama, running for president is different than serving as president. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can’t always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Sen. Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America’s veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.”

McCain uses the wrong argument here, a thinly-veiled “chickenhawk” attack that demeans him. Does McCain really think that only veterans should run the government or have a voice in the Senate? Civilian control of the government and the military is a paramount principle of democracy. I know McCain understands that, but this pungent attack on Obama’s lack of military service is a misstep.

Where Waters failed yesterday, Obama succeeded. The Left argues incessantly about Why can’t the wealthiest nation in the world afford [fill in the blank]? The argument serves to shame their opponents into capitulating on the growth of federal spending and federal power, exploding entitlements into full-blown socialist nanny-state burdens that trap generations of future Americans into paying for our government-provided Utopia. In the end, this process will require the seizure of all capital by the government in order to support its bloated entitlement burden.

The real argument against the Webb version of the GI Bill, the farm bill, and nationalization of the oil industry is that the federal government already spends too much money, and it has other priorities than income redistribution. McCain did make this point in his lengthy statement yesterday, but it got obliterated by the money quote about Obama’s lack of service.

We did not become the “wealthiest nation” through government confiscation and central economic planning. Our economic success came through the free flow of markets, a respect for private property, and a federal government that knew its Constitutional place. The decades-long impulse to solve every problem and redistribute wealth through the auspices of Washington DC threaten that long-term economic viability, and every additional giveaway program — no matter how well-intentioned — adds to the catastrophic collapse we or our children will experience through entitlements.

Republicans need to make this argument central to their theme, but first they have to act like they believe it. And they need to convince the electorate to stop demanding these giveaways, a task which appears almost impossible, especially given the low state of GOP credibility on spending. McCain has more credibility on spending and reform, but he needs to focus his message better than he did yesterday.

* – Some heard this as “liberal”.  The video seems inconclusive, but that would be quite an indictment ….


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

McCain needs to stop reacting to everything so personally. Every time he opens his mouth it is to say he’s offended by something, and to tout his own honor.

This is not an attractive quality for a would-be president.

BigD on May 23, 2008 at 7:39 AM

We may be the wealthiest country in the world, but that wealth does not belong to the government, nor was it created by the government.

Certain politicians seem unable to understand that. Call it “Obamenomics”.

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 23, 2008 at 7:41 AM

McAMNESTY is all about me, me, me … America is now full of people that are just here for the handouts, and motor-voter to help them get more handouts. We have too few stakeholders left.

Democrats, raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control. You figure out why gun control is so important to Democrats.

tarpon on May 23, 2008 at 7:41 AM

Heck, with that kind of thinking from the Democrats, we might as well have H. Chavez as Pres….at least he has expeirience at govt take-over of business…..

I really feel that this is the prevalent “back room” thinking of essentially the Dem. Super-delagates–the power brokers of the Dem Party……..it just slips out over time. The Top of the power pyramid…

Not really a surprise that this is on the back of their minds…..USA Oil Co’s should start pulling out of here..send a message.

sbark on May 23, 2008 at 7:45 AM

McCain needs to stop reacting to everything so personally. Every time he opens his mouth it is to say he’s offended by something, and to tout his own honor.
BigD on May 23, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Mac has always had that problem. The left has been trying mightily to push his buttons, even outright claiming that they have. Sooner or later, though, it’ll happen. That was one of my worries in the primary process.

bikermailman on May 23, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Sisyphean.

Classic

Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 8:00 AM

Why we are not talking about how this will affect our kids is beyond me. I hear no one making that argument, and yet this is exactly the argument that will appeal to liberal parents. Love your kids? Don’t make them pay for your entitlements. Don’t burden their future economy with the huge inefficient middle man of government. Doing these things will only make their future harder. Is that the role of parents? To take advantage of the only class of citizens without any true tax representation at all and saddle them with givernment debts that will bury their ability to succeed?

beatcanvas on May 23, 2008 at 8:00 AM

Waters actually said, “guess what this liberal is all about?”

Sorry, it just makes it so much juicier.

surrounded on May 23, 2008 at 8:03 AM

Here is the Full text of McCain’s response. It better explains McCain’s position.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Obama_criticizes_absent_McCain_on_Senate_floor_McCain_hits_back_hard.html

SoldiersMom on May 23, 2008 at 8:04 AM

We did not become the “wealthiest nation” through government confiscation and central economic planning. Our economic success came through the free flow of markets, a respect for private property, and a federal government that knew its Constitutional place. The decades-long impulse to solve every problem and redistribute wealth through the auspices of Washington DC threaten that long-term economic viability, and every additional giveaway program — no matter how well-intentioned — adds to the catastrophic collapse we or our children will experience through entitlements.

That paragraph needs to be repeated over & over… Obama & McAmnesty are going to have debates. One of the questions needs to be “what is your definition of Capitalism and the role government plays”. I have already seen (heard) enough from Obama to realize that this man doesn’t comprehend the concept of open & free markets. I’m not sure about McCain. Obama thinks we have 57 states, doesn’t comprehend capitalism, and bitterly despises the use of military under any circumstances. The questions asked of these two during debates should come directly from American citizens.

Question: If the federal government can take over an oil corporation, what is to stop the feds from taking over all corporations & big businesses? Maxine Waters let the truth slip from her lips; the truth about how deeply Liberals believe that Socialism is the future for America. Americans can’t be trusted to do much of anything without the supervision of big brother! Scary beyond words! Just look at how successful big brother has been with our social security program.

Tom Shipley, how can you support these people?

Keemo on May 23, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Obama — like most other Democrats — sees the federal government as a giant Santa Clause that can and should provide magically for everybody’s needs. (I would say every citizen’s needs, but they don’t even limit it to citizens). You want to have a steady income in your retirement years? Then government should provide that for you. You want to own a home you can’t afford? Then government should provide that for you. You want to go to college? Then government should provide that for you. You want comprehensive health care coverage? Then government should provide that for you. You want inexpensive gas? Then government should provide that for you. Who cares that we can’t afford to pay for all these things? We’ll just borrow more money from the Chinese, or print more dollars, or whatever. Who cares? The Democrats are like the little kid who believes that the ATM machine is a magic money maker — you just put your card in and it will always give you as much as you want, whenever you want, no questions asked (and no obligations on your part to make deposits).

AZCoyote on May 23, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Ed, I disagree with your assessment of McCain’s reponse. I think the title of this article is more accurate “…McCain hits back hard”

Obama criticizes absent McCain on Senate floor, McCain hits back hard

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Obama_criticizes_absent_McCain_on_Senate_floor_McCain_hits_back_hard.html

Excerpt from article on why McCain didn’t support Webb’s bill:

“The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran’s length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb’s bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

“Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly.

SoldiersMom on May 23, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Guilt by Association? – You decide.
Rashid Khalidi, who’s a professor at Columbia – hosted a fundraiser for him when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or or that he attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised Obama when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that while he served on the board of the Woods Fund, it voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife.
Too bad, we need a Hillary supporter to learn about this.
Somebody please rush this to Sean Hannity’s attention.
From the LA Times: [More...]
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
…In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.

Anita on May 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM

Did it really take the Captain coming onboard for us to get a Sisyphus reference? I mean really

al sends

afterdarknesslight on May 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Waters suggestion is down right frightening. If you want gas shortages and prices that would make $4 look like mere pennies then let the government take over.

40% of our oil and natural gas is off limits to exploration and all Congress is even seriously considering is hearings to dress down the executives. They should be opening up and encouraging drilling everywhere!

Dealing with Waters and the rest without loosing it is why they make the big bucks!

An Obama victory would lead to us living Obama Nation of sacrifice and socialism!

LifeTrek on May 23, 2008 at 8:19 AM

This just in: Barack Obama, today, received the endorsement of former bandit and now social worker, Robin Hood. In a Sherwood Forest news conference, Mr. Hood expressed his belief that Senator Obama would support robbing the rich to give to the poor. Addressing rumors that a president Obama would appoint Mr. Hood to head a new Nationalization and Redistribution Agency, Mr. Hood said that it is premature to speculate on any future plans. Mr. Hood, known for his colorful moniker, “Robin the Red Breast”, added that the peasants had not yet voted Senator Obama into office.

NNtrancer on May 23, 2008 at 8:19 AM

Actually a more accurate transcript of Maxine Waters Pinko Commie flub is:
That’s what this liberal member is all about, this liberal member…

I love it when liberals define liberalism for us.

The real argument against the Webb version of the GI Bill, the farm bill, and nationalization of the oil industry is that the federal government already spends too much money, and it has other priorities than income redistribution. McCain did make this point in his lengthy statement yesterday, but it got obliterated by the money quote about Obama’s lack of service.

Yes, that’s true, but the real argument about the Webb version of the GI bill is that while it may attract more volunteers initially, it will harm retention because there’s more incentive to quit than stay on. That is very bad policy indeed.

As for McCain, he needs to apologize for his idiotic chickenhawk statement so we can move on. Apologies are the cure-all for everything that ails a Democrat, so in the spirit of bi-partisanship he can reach across the aisle and tear a page from their play book.

Buy Danish on May 23, 2008 at 8:27 AM

Ed: . . . And they need to convince the electorate to stop demanding these giveaways, a task which appears almost impossible. . .

Here’s a Modest Proposal that would help, an Amendment to the US Constitution:

No person or officer of any corporate entity receiving any form of largesse from the Federal government, except in return for goods or services provided pursuant to a bona fide contract, may vote in any Federal election, until said person or officer has not received such largesse for at least 365 days.

The classic incentive for politicians in democracies to hand out goodies to the public is to create dependencies and generate more votes. Remove that incentive, and you’ll find much less interest in the welfare state.

MrLynn on May 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Why do I have the feeling that Congress will figure out a way to give me even higher gas prices, gas shortages and lower my net worth (via stock holdings in Exxon-Mobil, for instance) all in one bundle?

I don’t know what it is going to take to get people to realize that the key to our success as a nation is less government involvement. We seriously need some sort of awareness program, PSA-like ads done professionally, sublimal messaging added into pop-culture. This is freakin’ nuts.

reaganaut on May 23, 2008 at 8:38 AM

“And guess what this member would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”

As I watched this clip of Mad Maxine stating the obvious agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party to seize a private, (non-government) entity, my first thought was “what would be the motivation for a government to nationalize the petro industry?” Forgetting/ignoring that these companies are owned by shareholders, (investments funded by retirement accounts, pension funds, etc.), IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Mz. Waters can’t even begin to explain how government programs like social security and medicare are broke beyond repair while thinking that a government seized oil industry would be run any different.

Our capitalist run society may be seeing its last days if Waters and the socialist liberals have their way. Re-distribution of wealth is alive and well in the Democratic Party.

Rovin on May 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Most important dynamic of this debate between Congress critters and oil executives; oil companies do all the work, bear all of the risk to produce a product that nets them approximately (8) cents on the gallon sold. The federal government assumes no risk for this product, but yet charges it’s citizens approximately (19) cents on the gallon sold. State and local government then charges it’s citizens an additional amount per gallon sold, while taking NO risk for producing the product.

In California, citizens are paying government approximately (60) cents per gallon in the form of taxes, while the producer of the product is making (8) cents per gallon. Congress is grilling the producer of the product for supposed over charging of the public, while ignoring the simple fact that they themselves are raping the public at a ratio of about 7-1… Why isn’t the media reporting this story in this way? This is basic 2nd grade math here folks.

This is a clear example of why Liberalism fails in every application around the globe!

Keemo on May 23, 2008 at 8:56 AM

“Death to the kulaks! Death to the bourgeoisie!”

Akzed on May 23, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Additional thought:

If Shell Oil Co. made a profit of 3-billion dollars in 2007, that would mean that the federal government made a profit of 6-billion by way of taxes charged on the same product sold. If the feds position on this is “how can you justify making such huge profits while the American people are suffering”, well then why doesn’t someone from the media ask the feds why they are charging the same Americans double that of the oil company.

Keemo on May 23, 2008 at 9:09 AM

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote.

And once 51% of voters pay no taxes, you can count on them to tax the other 49% out of business.

petefrt on May 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM

I’m not sure Barry is any different than old Aunt Maxine.

benrand on May 23, 2008 at 9:19 AM

* – Some heard this as “liberal”. The video seems inconclusive, but that would be quite an indictment ….

Watch and listen to it again, Ed. She clearly says “this liberal”.

CP on May 23, 2008 at 9:27 AM

I was beginning to have fantasies of all of these young men and women returning from war and bringing a loud note of sanity to those circuses of crazy liberalism that are our colleges and universities. I think many professors would be unable to deal with forceful and rational opposition to the dreck they teach. I could even see the campuses becoming semiarmed camps as sometimes happened to the universities of the middle ages.

snaggletoothie on May 23, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Why do politicians (all Dems and many Pubs) absolutely hate the new media, and are planning (behind closed doors) regulation designed to silence the new media?

The education of the people, that’s why. The MSM has been all about shaping the news, controlling the brainwash… The new media comes along and starts to tell on those media critters who are working hand-n-hand with the talking points.

I have received an education about the process of taking oil from the ground and turning it into energy by way of Rush Limbaugh and other outlets making up the new media. If it were up to the MSM, the only thing I would know is big oil is making huge profits at the expense of the lil guy; nothing about how the real “big guy” here is none other than big brother.

Thank God for the new media…

Keemo on May 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM

As the socialism of the democrats seems to swell with the possibility of millions of illegal aliens acquiring the vote and thus creating a one party system, those who love this country must adapt to survive or make our voices heard to maintain our country’s values. Obama is the next step in the process of humbling our nation.

volsense on May 23, 2008 at 9:36 AM

It’s all over the media–including here at HotAir!–that McCain criticized BO for not being in the military. The link SoldiersMom provided at 8:04AM has his actual profound statement.

jgapinoy on May 23, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Waters is an idiot. Nobody in the Democratic Party leadership would be dumb enough to grab the tar baby of nationalization. By doing so they would become the custodians of gas prices and would be held accountable for the price increases that they want to impose on the American driver. No, it is far more expedient to have the oil companies to scapegoat the price of their preferred environmental policies.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Take a look at the video that AP posted last night while Waters says this. As soon as the word “socialization” exits her lips, she knows she made a big blunder, not the least of which is that the actual term is “nationalization”.

Oh in Maxines case I dont think she feels like she made a blunder saying socialization other than it’s the wrong term. I think she’ll tell you straight up she wants to take all the oil companies and run em. Cause they are evil and the government will make them do good and charge 1.50 a gallon.

Dash on May 23, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Earth to Maxine Waters–we could lower the price of gasoline by allowing oil companies to drill in America–not only ANWR, but along the continental shelf, offshore Florida and California, and a new oil field discovered under North Dakota.

But we can’t do that, because the EEEEEVIL oil companies might make a profit! So we waste some of our oil turning corn into ethanol, instead of selling corn to starving people in the Third World and balancing our trade deficit. Brilliant!!! I wonder if these Congresscritters have been hanging around ethanol plants pouring it down da hatch like Hillary!

Steve Z on May 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM

We should do a much for veterans as possible, before we do anything for illegal aliens.

Johan Klaus on May 23, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Johan Klaus

Nobody wants to do anything for illegal aliens. It’s in our interest to document the undocumented masses. How do we accomplish this? Offer to make them legal if they
–pay a big fine
–pay back taxes
–jump through bureaucratic hoops
–wait their turn.
This is not amnesty. Duh.

jgapinoy on May 23, 2008 at 10:20 AM

* – Some heard this as “liberal”. The video seems inconclusive, but that would be quite an indictment ….

Ed Morrissey on May 23, 2008 at 7:18 AM

There is no doubt she said liberal both times. I’m not sure how it would be termed inconclusive.

12thman on May 23, 2008 at 10:24 AM

“Why can’t the wealthiest nation in the world afford [fill in the blank]?”

Our country owes more debt than the rest of the world combined. That’s not the same thing as being wealthy.

Kevin M on May 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Waters is an idiot. Nobody in the Democratic Party leadership would be dumb enough to grab the tar baby of nationalization. By doing so they would become the custodians of gas prices and would be held accountable for the price increases that they want to impose on the American driver. No, it is far more expedient to have the oil companies to scapegoat the price of their preferred environmental policies.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM

I respectfully disagree, Jerry. They are eager to grab that tar baby because they see it as free money that flows out of the ground, just like chavez. The logistics and business aspect is completely lost on them. That’s something the proles figure out when we tell them to, is their attitude.

This is a very dangerous and disturbing trend. I sincerely hope that America utterly rejects this nonsense. Otherwise we are asking for enslavement.

So it could go like this; the dems take over and convert America into the communist paradise, and then islam usurps the dems. Exactly like the european model.

We’ve got to do a better job of educating our people. Reaganaut’s PSA idea is a very good place to start. Bypass the msm and widecast the messages on the web. While we still can.

techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I’m with 12thman 10;24am

She most definitely said Liberal, and she said it twice.

bridgetown on May 23, 2008 at 10:33 AM

techno:

I agree that Maxine Waters fits your description but despite apparances Pelosi, Reid, and co. aren’t that stupid. Waters is on racial and ideological fringe of the party. She is also at the lower end of the IQ scale as well.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM

but this pungent attack on Obama’s lack of military service is a misstep.

I don’t agree. As a veteran, I firmly believe that in order to understand the military, you have to have been there. You can’t really understand it unless you experience it for yourself. I also believe that the President should be a veteran. If you’re going to be the Commander in Chief of the military, you need to understand how it operates.

Kowboy on May 23, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I agree that Maxine Waters fits your description but despite apparances Pelosi, Reid, and co. aren’t that stupid. Waters is on racial and ideological fringe of the party. She is also at the lower end of the IQ scale as well.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Perhaps, but I sure don’t think I’d bet against reid, et al’a demonstrable stupidity. I have some stunning examples digitized forever. Bits don’t deteriorate or evaporate. These days what you say and do in front of a camera or microphone is preserved forever. That’s going to be an increasingly powerful tool.

But your point is well taken. Personally, I think the dems are in a world of hurt. Chickens roosting and the like. Just wish it would happen faster.

techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 11:14 AM

et al’s

Coffee…

techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM

* – Some heard this as “liberal”. The video seems inconclusive, but that would be quite an indictment ….

There’s no doubt that’s what she said. That was what I heard yesterday and went and listened again after Ed quoted her as saying “member”. Unless she’s got serious speech impediment, she said “liberal”; twice.

Big John on May 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM

techo:

Reid has said some stupid things but one thing he does know about and that is making money.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM

techo:

Reid has said some stupid things but one thing he does know about and that is making money.

jerryofva on May 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Yup. He’s an absolutely bottom of the barrel politician though, and we have way too many of those in power now. On both sides of the asile.

techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM

E

arth to Maxine Waters–we could lower the price of gasoline by allowing oil companies to drill in America–not only ANWR, but along the continental shelf, offshore Florida and California, and a new oil field discovered under North Dakota.

But we can’t do that, because the EEEEEVIL oil companies might make a profit! So we waste some of our oil turning corn into ethanol, instead of selling corn to starving people in the Third World and balancing our trade deficit. Brilliant!!! I wonder if these Congresscritters have been hanging around ethanol plants pouring it down da hatch like Hillary!

Steve Z on May 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM

The reason isn’t the oil-company profits. It’s that the liberals (Democrats and RINOs) have been brainwashed by the enviro-whackos into believing that if the price of gas goes high enough, that will force the country to ‘alternative’ energy, e.g. the much-more-expensive and uncertain wind and solar power.

As long as the Beltway crowd can ride around in chauffeur-driven limos and black Suburbans, they will be happy to see the rest of us return to bicycles and rickshaws. All while the Chinese and Indians abandon theirs in favor of cars!

The brainwashed Dems and RINOs have no interest in bringing down the price of gasoline. Not only does it make the enviro-nuts happy, but it ensures that the voting public will blame George W. Bush “and his oil-buddy friends” in November.

The only solution is to elect candidates who pledge to reverse the disastrous energy policies of the past four decades. Unfortunately, the clueless Republican candidate for president is on the side of the whackos and nuts.

Here’s what his slogan should be:

******AMERICAN ENERGY FOR AMERICAN GROWTH!******

MrLynn on May 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM

This whole hearing was disgusting. Schumer was accusing the president of Chevron (?) of making the Poor People of New Jersey (or wherever) suffer for his $22M salary – it was absoultely DISGUSTING. If his salary was $0, spread out over the whole population of New Jersey, that’s about $2.00 a year, maybe??? I hate hate hate these people.

melda on May 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Does McCain really think that only veterans should run the government or have a voice in the Senate? Civilian control of the government and the military is a paramount principle of democracy.

While I agree that “[c]ivilian control of the government and the military is a paramount principle of democracy,” I do not agree with the first part of this statement. To have a voice in the Senate, I agree, one should not need military service, unless he/she is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Same with running for the Presidency, for three reasons:
1) If one doesn’t understand the difference between a First Sergeant and a Lieutenant, for example, then how is he/she going to understand issues more complex than rank structures, such as operational and strategic levels of warfare?
2) To understand a Soldier, one cannot read a book or watch Saving Private Ryan and consider themselves enlightened as to a Soldier’s character and mindset. How can one lead Soldiers whom they do not understand and share no relation? Soldiers, of course, will respect the position of the President, but how much better if the Soldiers can respect the President as a former brother in arms when the President orders them into battle?
3) Unless the candidate has been willing to fight for, shed blood for, and potentially die for this country, how can we, as citizens, assume that person has the commitment to this country that the job requires?
Of course, the question arises, “So, does that mean that the President must be a former farmer, public works director, medical doctor, and economist as well?” In short, no. The military is unique in that it, to paraphrase Reagan, “makes all other issues academic in nature.” The courts, for example, give deference to the military on many issues due to the very nature of its mission and requirements to accomplish that mission. It’s these same principles that make military service different than those I listed above.

Send_Me on May 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM

If I wouldn’t know that Maxine Waters is real, dumb as a rock, and dangerous, she could qualify as a fabulous comedienne.

Yes, sadly, I see myself in that front picture, struggling to hold that socialis-Marxist boulder. HEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!

Wake up America before it is too late.

Last night the limo driver who picked me up at the airport told me to vote for Obama. When I asked him why he said “he’s, young, was unknown until recently, has no experience, but the people like him because he can speak well”. I told him that I’d watch between now and Nov. to help me make up my mind.

To myself I thought “the meek will never inherit the world, but they will always be fooled, be the fools, and will be used”. Also, I thought “they are going for a Preacher in Chief” and our whoremedia and whorespondents will try hard to aid them. “Nice”, as Anslow would say, but tragic.

Entelechy on May 23, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Capt,

I think you are wrong about McCain’s remarks. This is a powerful peace. Wow. Here it is in full. Who’s ever doing his writing is very good.

“It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can’t always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America’s veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

“When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well.

“But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

“Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

“I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

“The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran’s length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb’s bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

“Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

“Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.”

patrick neid on May 23, 2008 at 12:39 PM

A rational democratic party died when JFK died. It doesn’t help when these people have no business sense because they have never had to run a business, make a payroll, or come up with the money to pay the taxes that have been placed on them. Spending other people’s money is so very easy. They really believe that they know better how our lives should be lived and that government should be there to help all those that are not as smart as them.
We are so screwed.

Jimmybob on May 23, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Who’s ever doing his writing is very good…

patrick neid on May 23, 2008 at 12:39 PM

It’s Mark Salter, with whom McCain authored 5 books. The guy is very good and feisty on top of it.

Entelechy on May 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM

America was built on incentive. The incentive to work hard, and to profit from same. Socialism destroys incentive. Our public schools are filled with Socialists who are teaching their failed system of beliefs to children who are a captive audience – because of a system [Socialism] that seeks to destroy the family and, therefore, parental guidance and nurturing, and replace same with State control, interference and indoctrination.

Because of the above, and because a majority of “Americans” are Socialists, this Nation will collapse. She is lost. She is doomed to become just another stagnant country, wallowing in the Socialist cesspool of despair, failure and hopelessness.

Lenin said it best – Destroy the family, and the society will collapse. Because of Socialism – God has been eliminated from the public forum. This has resulted in the embracing of divorce, adultery, abortion and homosexuality; all of which has led to the destruction of the family. And, as Lenin said, when the family is destroyed, society collapses. When society collapses, who will pick up the pieces? The State. The State becomes the God and Nurturer of the People.

This Nation is on the verge of destruction – by Socialist design.

OhEssYouCowboys on May 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Send_Me

totally agree

pseudonominus on May 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Wow- Hugo Chavez is closer than we think!

God help us.

NTWR on May 23, 2008 at 2:09 PM

because a majority of “Americans” are Socialists, this Nation will collapse. She is lost. She is doomed to become just another stagnant country, wallowing in the Socialist cesspool of despair, failure and hopelessness.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM

You’re welcome to move any time you wish, pal. If you are not willing to help change this country, to prevent such “loss” from happening, then by all means leave. Is there a danger of what you said actually happening? Yes, to be sure; however, nothing is inevitable, well, except for taxes, death, Christ’s 2nd coming, the Cardinals winning another Series… Your frustration is understandable, but if you and everyone else gives up, then your “prophecy” will be self-fulfilling, in which case, I’ll blame you.

Send_Me on May 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Send_Me on May 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM

You imbecile, I’ve just described what is destroying my country. You can keep your head in the sand, like most “Conservatives,” and keep calling people “Democrats” and “Liberals,” instead of what they are – “Socialists and Communists.” [Please see the comments of Maxine Waters, on a recent HA thread]. You can pretend that this Nation is doing fine, that there is nothing to worry about, and that all is well. In this regard, I note that you’ve not countered any of my argument, with anything which would serve to eliminate the destruction of this country – by Socialism.

Your admission that there is a “danger” that “what you said” could “actually happen” is a self-indictment on your part. My point, one that you, of course, utterly missed – is that it IS happening. And, “pal,” it’s BEEN happening for over 4 decades.

So, “pal,” save your “you can leave the country any time you wish” bullshit, for those who think that such platitudes are an adequate response to describing the current destruction of our Nation.

It is my having described what is happening to this country, that precisely indicates my desire to “change this country” – by making imbeciles like you take note of the ongoing threat. You can’t change the direction of this country, if you don’t perceive the threat. Not perceiving the threat, and, therefore, not making it a topic of discussion, is for dullards like you.

OhEssYouCowboys on May 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM

“The real argument against the Webb version of the GI Bill, the farm bill, and nationalization of the oil industry is that the federal government already spends too much money”

No, the federal government spends too much money on the Farm Bill and nationalization of the oil industry and in 100 other ways, but the federal government does not spend too much money on the GI Bill.

You need to get this right. The proper response for McCain in reaction to Obama trying to bid up Webb’s GI Bill is for McCain to come over the top (Texas Hold ‘em parlance) and over bid Obama.

Not to try and use veterans as a bludgeon against Obama.

You need another reason why McCain is going to lose? This is one.

pabarge on May 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM

“All things are possible” is a charming conceit for a child, a deadly one for a politician.

Waters is a grade A moron, as are all, ALL Marxists and socialists. The entire history of mankind is a repudiation of their beliefs, but they just stick their fingers in their ears and keep going.

If they keep pushing, it will eventually get bloody – it always does.

I think it’s hilarious that the left criticizes “American Exceptionalism” when they think themselves an exception to the entirety of history.

Merovign on May 23, 2008 at 3:37 PM

You imbecile

Please refrain from ad hominem fallacies. They serve no constructive purpose.

You can keep your head in the sand, like most “Conservatives,” and keep calling people “Democrats” and “Liberals,” instead of what they are – “Socialists and Communists.” [Please see the comments of Maxine Waters, on a recent HA thread]. You can pretend that this Nation is doing fine, that there is nothing to worry about, and that all is well. In this regard, I note that you’ve not countered any of my argument, with anything which would serve to eliminate the destruction of this country – by Socialism.

Again, an ad hominem to start: I don’t recall calling anyone anything: “democrats,” “liberals,” “communists,” or whatever. Oh, and who said that this country is “fine?” The fallacies of relevance you’re using here do show a passionate pet rock that you have, a soap box if you will. Perhaps I can clear up your perceptions of my views with this: I’m not arguing that there are socialist underpinnings taught by our public schools, communistic policies enacted as public policy by “socialists” (to use the term on which you and I agree), nor am I so obtuse to recognize the threat you’ve pointed out.

In this regard, I note that you’ve not countered any of my argument, with anything which would serve to eliminate the destruction of this country – by Socialism.

Apparently you missed the intent of my response. My intent was not to counter your stated evidences for the socialistic acts of takeover in our society. My sole purpose was to challenge your view of an inexorable takeover by socialism. I saw a hopelessness in your comments that deserved challenging.

So, “pal,” save your “you can leave the country any time you wish” bullshit, for those who think that such platitudes are an adequate response to describing the current destruction of our Nation.

Actually, such a response, restructured as an imperative, oh, and a “please,” would be very adequate for confronting hopelessness. Yes, the nation in danger. Got it. “In danger” does not equal “destroyed.” Some battles have been lost. Some won. Many are still to fight.

It is my having described what is happening to this country, that precisely indicates my desire to “change this country” – by making imbeciles like you take note of the ongoing threat. You can’t change the direction of this country, if you don’t perceive the threat. Not perceiving the threat, and, therefore, not making it a topic of discussion, is for dullards like you.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Yep, got the threat. Moving on now. May I ask, “So, what now?” We have not lost. I plan on sticking around for a while and continue fighting, both overseas and abroad. I’m not putting down my weapon just yet. You’re more than welcome to keep fighting with us “conservatives” rather than trying to fulfill your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Send_Me on May 23, 2008 at 3:44 PM

This member would be all about socializing

correction: “liberating!”

Ed

…Spot On!

moxie_neanderthal on May 23, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Over the last dozen years that I have been in and out of post war Viet Nam (I served three tours during the War) I have been impressed by the successes of the Vietnamese economy. Note, the reason that Viet Nam has one of the fastest growing economies in the world today is because in 1986, under a policy called “Doi Moi,” they started to piece by piece dismantle the Communist/Socialist economic structure that Ha Noi imposed at the end of the war. The Vietnamese are to this day still diligently dismantling the old system and replacing it with a heavily Capitalistic mixed economic system.

Note also, the MSM, except for “Bird Flu, almost completely ignores Viet Nam these days. Wonder why? (sarcasm). Next question, when will American Liberals become as economically literate as Vietnamese Communists?

Linh_My on May 23, 2008 at 3:59 PM

For the record, she said “liberal” Ed, and she said it twice. The phonetics of the word “member” are substantially different than the word “liberal,” there was no mistaking what she said. So we should not cave into liberals and pretend she said “member.” She said “liberal” twice and that’s a fact.

But the fact that she called herself a “liberal” twice is of no great consequence, after all, who didn’t know that she was a raging liberal? What was so substantial about her statement is that she also admitted her a communist/socialist tendencies in the very same statement, albeit only by a slip of the tongue.

Actually that’s no big news either for people who are truly attuned to the real nature of Democrats. Nevertheless, she was caught flatfooted on this one and we should rub Democrat’s noses in it at every opportunity.

Thank you comrade Maxine Waters for making it all so clear.

Maxx on May 23, 2008 at 5:47 PM

We may be the wealthiest country in the world, but that wealth does not belong to the government, nor was it created by the government.

Certain politicians seem unable to understand that. Call it “Obamenomics”.

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 23, 2008 at 7:41 AM

Very well put.

mikeyboss on May 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM

She definitely used the word liberal twice.

BobUSMC on May 24, 2008 at 3:57 AM

Thank you comrade Maxine Waters for making it all so clear.
Maxx on May 23, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Sums it up nicely.

Send_Me on May 24, 2008 at 8:33 AM