You are currently browsing the daily archive for September 7, 2008.


checking my flip-flop list, turns out this was hinted already back in June

“Meanwhile Obama is telling large contributor bundlers (rich folks) that he may delay the return of Clinton era tax rates for the rich

Suddenly Obama seems to agree with Bushco & Republicans that tax cuts are good for the economy!

Per AP

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

So, let me get this straight: Bush created the recession with his tax cuts, but Obama will do the same and expect new results?

Seems the Reagan love is real! Awww! From Obama’s book:

The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight–that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly

bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie–contained a good deal of truth.”

I can see that Obama intends to trickle us down like his hero.

But maybe the reason is clear. Apparently he told O’Really

“Look, I don’t like paying taxes,”Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, says in tonight’s scheduled installment of his running interview with FOX News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly. ” What, you think I like writing a check? ”

Awww! It’s so nice when rich people stick for eah other!

CNN reports

And I actually always thought of the military as an enobling and, you know, honorable option.

“But keep in mind — I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”

Sure, Barack, because without a chance to kill, what’s the point of enlisting?

There was more on this gaffe laden interview, including this little bit about “his Muslim faith”

Paging Dr Freud!

Same interview, via TIME

This Week: Obama refused to say if Palin is qualified for VP, saying he’s not interested in “a résumé contest.”

What made him lose interest, I wonder? He seemed to relish it only days ago

Zogby is working hard to regain its trashed credibility

The Ticket Horserace 9-5/6 8-29/30


49.7% 47.1%


45.9% 44.6%

Others/Not sure

4.4% 8.3%

Good luck with that, but I like the trends anyway

and Gallup

Posted Image

Update of September 11

And a video from Native Americans against Obama

Tom Coburn speaks

McCain was a cosponsor of an amendment that Coburn tried to push through that would have moved the money from Alaska to Louisiana to repair the I-10 freeway damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.) opposed that amendment. Biden and Obama, said Coburn, “voted for [the bridge earmark] every time it came up because they played the game on earmarks. Remember what the appropriators said: ‘If you don’t vote for this, your earmarks are next. We’ll come after your earmarks.’ That was the veiled threat.”

Update of September 10

A more in depth analysis here

How come the Mainstream Media doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY call into question Obama’s own vote to fund said bridge, TWICE, even choosing it above helping his “own community” in New Orleans? The levels of dishonesty and corruption that we are constantly being exposed to by our News Mediums is beyond all comprehension.

MSNBC reports that

Criticizing new VP candidate Sarah Palin, Obama said she poses as an anti-big-spending maverick despite having pulled in pork-barrel projects into her home state. Calling Palin “a skillful politician,” Obama charged the Alaska governor with taking earmarks “when it is convenient” but decrying them now that she is headlining McCain’s agenda.

“Words mean something!” Obama said of Palin’s reputation as an anti-earmark champion. “You can’t just make stuff up.”

First of all, my congratulation to Obama for finally tearing himself from the crotch sniffing. And now the answer:

“Barack Obama has requested the equivalent of $1 million in new pork-barrel spending for every working day he’s been in the U.S. Senate, while John McCain has never once asked for an earmark, and Gov. Palin has vetoed hundreds of millions in government spending including killing the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere’,” Bounds wrote in an email response. “Just like so many other issues Barack Obama is all talk, has no record to back it up and isn’t ready to make change.”

And here’s what McCain spokesman didn’s say:

Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.

Let’s look at this a second time

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Obama and Biden preferred the bridge to nowhere to Katrina releief?

This is the cronology for Palin:

1. In 2005, Sen. Stevens lobbied for $327 Million from congress for this bridge and other projects. Congress removed the earmark for the bridge, but allowed the funds to go through.
2. Sen. Stevens took the money and allocated $113 Million for the bridge.
3. Sen. Palin supported the bridge while she campaigned for governor in 2005.
4. In 2007, the cost of the bridge construction had escalated to $400 Million. This meant that the state would have had to pony up the difference between $400 Million and $113 Million.
5. Gov. Palin announced that she was pulling her support for the bridge because the state would be irresponsible to spend the $113 Million and an additional $387 Million to build the bridge.
What the heck is so difficult to understand? Stevens lobbied for the money, but didn’t allocate and leave enough of it in the budget to make building the bridge financially responsible for Gov. Palin to continue on with the project!!
This is a ridiculous argument. She supported a bridge if it was fiscally responsible. When it wasn’t, she pulled her support. It’s what good governors do.

Not Your Sweetie

September 2008