Im no Ron but neither are the majority of voters wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:18 AM:Mr Snyder is right on the money!

He truly exhibits the integrity of a military retiree, not buying in to the nonsense from either side of the political spectrum that so often spews so much venom here.

Semper Fi, Fred! Its patriots like you that will not allow the long honorable politcal process be trampled upon in this fine country!

Im no Ron but neither are the majority of voters wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:25 AM:Rita,

Despite the positive attributes of Ms. McCain, or Ms. Obama for that matter, potential First Ladies are not candidates, nor does the Constitution of our great nation designate them as governmental officials.

So, neither ladies are excellent or poor "candidates" for First Lady.

Surely, you or any others, will not be casting their vote in November on the basis of which spouse will make the best First Lady.

If I am wrong, and the person on the President's arm will determine how American's vote, well, Heaven help us all!

Kraatz is Right wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:49 AM:Obama is 50% Caucasian. That's why Jackson really is upset with Obama.

eagle wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:18 AM:Very good analogy Larry Klassen
between gas and economic activity. I believe that you should have left out the reference to the democrats though. I for one will celebrate the day that us common folks stand up to both parties as one. Then and only then will the boobs listen to us.

OBAMACAN wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:44 AM:To Wondering, yesterday at 9:27 p.m.
Whoa, tiger! You want to "start from" one number, and based on that one number invalidate the whole point about applying basic conservation measures, including proper tire inflation, properly tuned engines, efficient driving habits - and that's only in cars, not even talkin' about houses?
THE POINT that seems to shoot right over your head is that the amount of oil we will get next year, if we give the oil companies everything they want - drill on all our public lands, don't have to use the oil-rich leases already approved and don't have to commit to satisfying domestic demand first (returning our product from our lands to US) before going on the international markets is, let's see, how much oil do we get next year? ZERO. And the year after that? ZERO! And the year after that? NUTHIN'! Nuthin' 'till about 2030 if we're lucky to get some leftovers after the oil giants sell everything to China and India.
And how much would we save if everyone inflated their tires properly? Tuned up and maintained their engines? Drove the speed limit (what part of "illegal" don't you understand)? Didn't accelerate to a red light and then slam on the brakes? Maybe percentage-wise it doesn't amount to all that much (though I think it is more significant than you give it credit for). But we will have something. Immediately. This year. And next year. And the year after that.
And let's stop nickel-and-diming. Put solar panels on your house and get a plug-in hybrid. Or convert your Benz to biodiesel. Get a GM flex-fuel car and use some ethanol from switchgrass grown on land not suitable for food crops like corn. Not ten years from now, THIS YEAR. If we do all the things we can do, and do them NOW, then by the time you would have your oil drilled, pumped, refined, sold to China with a little trickle-down back to us, in the year 2030, we could be completely weaned from our oil addiction, and everyone except Ron and his ExxonMobil stocks will be very, very happy.
And look what it does to oil prices -
People have been talking about offshore drilling, and all that happened was oil stocks, profits and consumer prices went up, up, up. But all of a sudden, you get Al Gore from the left and T. Boone Pickens from the right, talking about becoming energy independent NOW and it strikes terror into the hearts of the oil speculators and all of a sudden prices retreat. Thank you Al and T.Boone, and let's get real about shaking free from the shackles of the oil tyrants.
At some point, people are gonna get tired of bein' hit over the head, and they're going to figure out whose been doin' the hitting.

Dear Rita wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:02 AM:Just like your hero Cindy McCain, you are absolutely clueless and out of touch with the common American. I'm sure the heiress pumps her own gas, knows the price of a gallon of milk and works like the rest of us slaving all day just to make ends meet. Yep, these attributes make her an excellent candidate for first lady.

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:12 AM:Or releasing of details of secret programs to catch terrorists, Donald Ream. You forgot that they printed stories about the SWIFT program, and have repeatedly, done everything they can do to lose this war.
This paper has a long sad history of supporting, helping, promoting leftist, socialist, communist, Nazi causes.
During World War II, the NYT would not print that the Third Reich had targeted Jews for genocide.
The Times reporter Walter Duranty covered up the Ukrainian genocide by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a set of stories written in 1931 on Joseph Stalin's Five-Year Plan. While at the same time, Duranty lied deliberately about the Holodomor famine.
Plus Duranty claimed that individuals being sent to the Siberian labor camps were given a choice.
During the 80's, they purposely slanted left, towards Leftist Rebels in Central America, because the disagreed politically with Ronald Reagan.
And African-American reporter Jayson Blair was eventually forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. Blair's race was a major factor in the Times' initial reluctance to fire him.

Many, many more. Too many to list.
So much for the "Paper of Record."


Also, I agree with Ream, if the "gutless" Democratic leadership and their "clueless" environmental extremists would let us drill our own oil, we could kiss the Arab oil good-bye.
Democrats can ONLY win n November if the economy stays down. What better way to keep it down, than to starve it with lack of energy?
Inflate your tires, and put on a sweater. If these clowns get in, it will be a long, long 4 years.

To Jack wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:24 AM:As a state employee, I have always made less than my civilian counterparts. Now our brainless governor wants to take away what little we already make just to bully legislators who should actually be the ones paying for this mess. It's easy for people like you who are not affected to agree with Scwarzenegger. I'm sure that if your salary or retirement was getting cut you would feel the same way all 200,000 state employees do and support Controller Chiang.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:28 AM:Well, "eagle" at 4:18AM, the obvious party to bust the "Big 2" is along the order of the Libertarian Party. While the Libertarian Party may not be perfect, this country and its citizenry must regain the integrity of Our Constitution (which GWB is doing his best to destroy).
To paraphrase my sister (who I call at 4:29AM during her work-week as "the elbow in the ribs" to get up) -
"Were it up to the "Big 2" to seize the initiative, there would be a lot of unseized initiative littering the landscape."
My response -
"I can see it now, "Now Johnny, go pick up your unseized initiative right now or there will be no supper for you".
Regards, Alf.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:45 AM:Cindy McCain a great candidate for first lady. LOL, LMAO. Rick Davis, McCain campaign manager, will thank you. But, you describe her as a candidate. Will she be on the ballot?

Actually an improvement wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:16 AM:By treating the race as one between potential first ladies, these folks are actually doing better than the likes of Ron and sdraoul. According to those guys, McCain is running against Rev Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, that Ayers guy, and the Prophet Mohammed. Anyone but Obama...Obama's just too good, I guess, so they need to find questionable substitutes that McCain looks good when compared to them. And the amazing thing is: it's working! God bless the intelligence of the American voter. Maybe, like in Spain, apes will get rights here and the quality of the voting population will improve.

Hey Rita wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:17 AM:You say in your letter "She will make a superb first lady." I guess that is why John McCain dumped he his first wife after she was disfigured in a car accident. Yes John McCain is quite the hero.

Mark wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:38 AM:In these tough economic times, I think we need to seriously look at the issues, not name-calling, etc...Many have stated that drilling more will solve the problem, or at least, create a dent in the problem. The fact is drilling more will do very little if anything. If we opened every square mile of the outer continental shelf to oil rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and somehow created new refineries, the impact on gas would me minimal. According to the Energy Information Admin(EIA) drilling in the ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. Obviously if the price of oil continues to skyrocket, the savings would be slightly better. Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration, currently off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from Bush I might cut the price of gas by 3-4 cents, at most. It would take years for the oil to flow, and the oil we obtain will be offset by greater demand from China, India, and the rest of the world. Remember, the price of oil is set on the global market and according to the energy marketing research firm Global Insight, our current President's move, will not have an impact.
-America has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves, but we consume 24% of the world's oil. ANWR and other areas in america have an estimated 75 billion barrels of oil, which only makes a less than significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to 120 million barrels a day. Drilling here would lower our import of foreign oil, which currently makes up 60% of our total supply, but oil is a global commodity, and the worl wil suck up any additional American production.
-Still, with Americans hurting at the pump, it may be difficult for environmentalists and other opponents of increased domestic drilling to resist the push for more oil, whatever the cost. As recently as his 2000 presidential run, McCain had been against offshore drilling, but he changed his position recently, arguing that individual states should decide for themselves. (He remains against drilling ANWR, however, pointing out that "we called it a 'refuge' for a reason.' ") The Republican Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist — considered a possible vice-presidential candidate — also flip-flopped, backing McCain's position. Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist stated that "Drilling could help in the long term," Still, he acknowledges that even expanded drilling is unlikely to bring prices down much.
-Now, drilling is significantly safer now than in the past, so it may be worth it to drill more in some areas.
But any attempt to increase supply must be coupled with even heavier investment in energy efficiency and other methods to decrease oil demand — an approach that, Obama and McCain have said will be a key part of their energy policy (although in the Senate McCain has skipped or voted against every fuel efficiency bill since 1990, according to the League of Conservation Voters). In any case, Bush's plan is unlikely to be realized — the Democratic-controlled Congress remains against it, and Bush can't open up the new territory on his own.
The solution, according to a study at M.I.T.,the soulution to the problem is both drilling and serious conservation. We also need to encourage the government to give tax credits for renewable energies, which they recently failed to renew. Republicans claim that Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, Obama has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. Republicans also claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe.
The Republicans may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain’s, but that doesn’t mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.

Sources

"Climate Change: McCain Expresses Global Warming Worries." Greenwire, 18 May 2000.

Cohn, Peter. "McCain Sets Three Hearings for First Week of New congress." Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 23 Dec. 2002.

"McCain, Lieberman Introduce Plan to Cut Greenhouse Emissions." The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 9 Jan. 2003.

Republican Party ad assails Obama on energy. 6 Jul. 2008. The Associated Press, 8 Jul. 2008.

Mouwad, Jad. Economists Weigh McCain's Gas-Tax Plan. 37 Apr. 2008. The Caucus: The New York Times Politics Blog, 8 Jul. 2008.

Impact of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf. The Energy Information Administration, 2007.



-

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:39 AM:Of course, I agree with Joseph Kraatz, Obama, or as I like to call him "the Obamaman, has most definately rocked Jesse Jackson's world. Jackson will be replaced, and he just can not have that, now.. can he?

I thought for a moment, we were moving beyond the old tired tactics of race baiting by the likes of Jackson or Sharpton, but alas.. that has not happened.

Now, just yesterday the guy was out making a speech in which he said:
he does not "look like all those other presidents on the dollar bill."

Folks, this is like African-Americans being "allowed" to use the N-word, but nobody else can.
I gotta say, the marxist, the communists, and the rest of his mentors taught this guy very well. It's really a pretty smart Saul Alinsky concept, "you use their own rules against them."

June June June wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:52 AM:Ms. Kristapovich is wrong in her account of the Oceanside city council meeting. Whether or not one is a fan of Mr. Chavez, the facts are these: the topic under discussion was NOT closed when Mr. Chavez asked to speak again (had it been closed, there would have been no need for what followed: a call for the question, which is a means of closing the discussion -- until the question is called, the discussion is open). Learn a little about Roberts Rules of Order, Ms. Kristapovich. Learning opens up one's world, something you are in dire need of.

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:57 AM:As always...
It falls to me to set the record straight. Yesterday, several lib posters thought that we should be enetitled to cap any profits of any business, if THEY decided the company made too much.
Notice, it is always THEY who want to decide, like all little good lefties.

Missed in all the excitement, was this:

Exxon Mobil reported quarterly profits
on net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

But, buried in the story we find Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called 'other taxes.

In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second.

If you take the gross profit of $138 billion and see what the profit rate was at $11 billion, it comes down to about an 8% profit margin.
And well below the national average.

Oh Please wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:07 AM:That's the Way of It: So, let me get this straight. You people are going to spend the day on this blog discussing the race baiting and the qualifications of a possible future first lady? Identify the real issues of this Presidential election.
The future of this nation is at stake.

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:08 AM:It is because those who ideology tells them that BIGGER government is better government is now drivng the bus, Larry Klassen.

What most people fail to understand, as is seen today with the stories surrounding State budget cuts, is that.. these Huge, & MASSIVE bueracracy's are themselves dependent upon huge amounts of revenues coming in.
You've heard of the Military Industrial Complex?
Today, I'm introducing you to the
"Government Industrial Complex."
As I've said before, I'm in the John Bolton camp on this one.
I honestly believe we could lose 4 complete stories of government buildings, and never miss em.

Oh Please wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:13 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:57 AM: Ron likes to stress the percentage rather than the amount. If the oil people have the ability to make that profit and to pay all these taxes, why are they being subsidised? The nation and the people should have the right to regualte oil as it is the life blood of the present economy. It is a matter of national security and national survival.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:18 AM:Thanks for the setup "Ron" at 9:08AM.
You said "I honestly believe we could lose 4 complete stories of government buildings, and never miss em."
I add "Especially if they are 2 story buildings."
Regards, Alf.

sdraoul wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:23 AM:First, Obama dawdles on "REPARATIONS" for blacks because of "slavery." Basically, to hold on to 100 percent of the black vote he is for "reparations."

That is, he wants us to pay others for something that ended 143 years ago. This is another intrusion of race into the campaign.

I am happy to pay "reparations" to anyone who was held as a slave, anyone.

Obama has injected race into the Campaign as we knew he would as he did against Hillary. What a low life!

Yes, Obama, you don't look like any of those guys on our money. Unlike Washington, you didn't command an army or run a country for eight years. Unlike Jackson you didn't win a giant victory at New Orleans. Unlike Hamilton you didn't help create a constitution or help run a country. Unlike Grant you didn't win a war that freed blacks and united the nation. Unlike Franklin you didn't help create and mold the great country we are now.

All you have done is work as a community organizer for a Chicago communist organization created by a communist, Saul Alinsky. That doesn’t even rank a picture on food stamps.

Issues, Obama, not racial questions is what we are all about.

51 percent of Californians and even larger numbers want drilling for oil now, Obama. I'll bet even most of your black supporters do also.

Most blacks and Hispanics want school vouchers, Obama, but you don't.

France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear, Obama, and California only gets 13 percent of its power from nuclear. Why, Pbama, are you against more nuclear when the French can do it?

Our economy is growing thanks to huge exports, Obama. So why are you against NAFTA the main export engine of our economy that employs hundreds of thosuands of people?

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:24 AM:You know...
We are much often lectured by the left of how understanding they are. Of.. how caring they are. of how.. "open-minded" they are....

And then, we get to read Peggy Sloan today.

What have I been telling you folks?
They tell us every single day, they skip over, they don't read certain materials, and they do not listen to the other side.

I say: Read EVERYTHING!
Whether you agree with it or not, because it is not whether you agree with them, it's whether you can learn something from them. Education is a life long practise, it does not end when you graduate school.
But, to the hard left, they feel they will be tainted, their friends will question them, and they might even have to agree with "the other side!"
True debate does not happen by listening inside an echo chamber, that's what the extreme left does.
True education does not come from only going to those conferences, or bull sessions where everyone agree's with you. That's what group think does.
I want you to start reading what they say, how they say it, and whether evidence, of any kind, makes any difference. Then you know.

Art wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:36 AM:Given the mistreatment I've received from state employees over the years, it seems only fair that burger flippers should be paid more. There is some justice in the world!

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:37 AM:Obamacan: Gosh, I didn't read, or hear what you heard from Mr. Obama. He didn't mention homes, or conservation -- he made two very distinct, declarative sentences. Let me review them for you, slowly: ""We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much."

Note: ALL THE OIL! Note "just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

It was JUST those two things that would equal "ALL THE OIL".

It is not necessary to bring all of the ancillary issues into the equation. Mr. Obama is a wordsmith, a lawyer, and is a skilled word craftsman. He does not need Obamacan to revise and extend his remarks.

Now, can we deal with what he said, and then we can get to his plan to use the “excess profits” of the oil companies to provide $1,000 stimulus package for every household, and how he intends to get that “excess profit” from the 15 largest oil companies in the Middle East, Venezuela and Africa?

Huh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:38 AM:Ron's figures must be incorrect for this year The year is not over yet. His figures must be on last year's figures. Not that it really matters. The oil companies made more this year. So, they will logically being paying more income and sales taxes. Unless of course, the oil companies have some fine CPAs.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:42 AM:To follow up on what "Oh Please" said at 9:13AM,
It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, the actual dollar figure for other companies.
While "Exxon Mobil reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion"
the salient point is the following statement -
"the biggest quarterly profit EVER by ANY American corporation" (emphasis mine).
While "Ron" and others like to quote the percentage profit, the FACT remains that the actual dollar figure is astronomical.
Obscene.
Outrageous.
Each and every thing that you do to reduce your consumption of gasoline, no matter who says it is trivial, is a step in the right direction.
The ones who trivialize what can be done to reduce fuel consumption are usually the ones who stand to lose money if you are successful at using less.
Regards, Alf.

Roberts Rules wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:49 AM:There are ordinances and city policy regarding council meeting and Roberts rules doesn't always rule. Rocky would run amuck with the meetings if allowed. June June June must not have been there. Rocky was being Napoleonic as usual. I feel for the Mayor with the three amigos to deal with plus Esther who is a whole differecnt story.

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:55 AM:I stress the percentage, but that's the real indicator here, not totals.
You see.. "Oh Please" @9:13 AM,
Exxon-Mobil is a world-wide corporation. As I stated, these taxes are paid, world-wide.

Now, because YOUR mind likes to point out wealth as evil, you like to point to the number, which is just a number. When looked at, in scale, as I did, they make less money than does Mircosoft, or many other corps.
But given your obvious dislike of profits by anyone other than yourself, I can understand why you would only like to point to the number.

Why are they being subsidised? Good question, since the Democrats have been in charge for the last two years, that might be a good question to ask THEM. Don't ya think?

Same too with all those "excessively profitable" oil leases. How come they haven't brought those back, and re-evaluate them, and renegociated them?
If they are so outrageous?

And just for informational sake, Sir..
The Oil companies in this country have been very highly regulated for the last 100 years. An Oil company can not dril for it, transport it, refine it, nor sell it without being subject to regulations.
And I think I just wasted my time, because the guy will probably skip over, or (-) my post, with all this good information.
Oh, well.. his loss.

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:02 AM:So, in other words.. "Huh" @9:38 AM. You still think Oil companies are evil savage beasts that need to be destroyed, but yet.. you can't compete with my numbers, so you'll do what you guy's always do, and just make some snide remarks, just to let us know your still there?

As to "The year is not over yet."

Second quarter, Sir. Second quarter...
Good god.

hardtack wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:12 AM:Since gasoline price / gal is down approx. 30 cents from its high, does that mean big oil has stopped being greedy and is now in a philanthropic mood — or do any of you suspect that free market forces might have something to do with it?

Old Timer wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:15 AM:I am surprised that there has been no comment about "Jerry Sarnataro's letter concerning the Republican Leadership herding their pork into the pen just so they could get elected again. As an American ,I take offense at my elected "Supposed Leaders" that we defend and support, being led by a few party leaders playing the sly hand to fool the public just to get elected again. This trickery could be seen as lying. It seems the repubs continue to sink lower and lower into the mud pit as they continue with their cunning ways just to maintain some semblance of justification to keep their seats after the terrible Bush years. Is this the great GOP that you conservatives keep trying to convince us "Common Folk" to support??? I don't mean to leave the Dems out of the conversation because they can be just as deceiving, but the repubs seem to come across as so rightous - and when you are not looking or listening, here comes the party bosses to deceive. You know the country is in trouble when the masses think that the sly are thought to be wise.

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:20 AM:I suppose we can start to entertain Obama's concept of taxing the "excess profits" of "Big Oil" to fund a $500/person, or $1,000 a family stimulus plan.

If someone supporting this plan will define "excess profits," perhaps we can start this rather more pertinent discussion.

Well Now wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:23 AM:I am for the oil companies, the phone companies, and any other company that has a huge profit.

It's called enterprise.

Someone developed a plan, put it to work, and got rich. Their hard industriousness made it possible.

Why SHOULD you benefit from their money? Why SHOULD you tell them to stop?

Don't like who's making the money, come up with your own idea. Once you "MADE IT", the moneys yours.

How would you like it for me to come to you and say "You earned too much money...give me some. Quit making a profit."

You wouldn't like it.

If you don't like the companies making big money, find another company to use that makes less.

Then you will be back to square one because your new company will be reaping tons of profits.

Isn't telling companies to give away their money -- or quit making huge profits -- akin to communism/socialism or the like?

I don't want to give you the money I earned with the sweat of my brow.

I don't care if I am a billionaire, millionaire or Joe Dirt Poor. You DO NOT HAVE the right to MY MONEY.

You do not deserve it.

Get a life.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:24 AM:I'm wondering, "Wondering" at 9:37AM, if -
"All the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling" might mean the new drilling that oil companies want to do off-shore and in ANWR.
That input is going to be a small percentge of the total that we currently use, AND
it is similar in percentage to the savings from properly inflated tires and tune-ups.
That is unless you inflate one and deflate the other.
Regards, Alf.

McCain and wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:24 AM:Kerry

LEFT POW's in Viet Nam.

Ms M wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:28 AM:sdraoul
[-] wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:23 AM:First, Obama dawdles on "REPARATIONS" for blacks because of "slavery." Basically, to hold on to 100 percent of the black vote he is for "reparations."...SDR first of all that's really old news. Secondly, Obama in favor of monetary reparations, he just wants better schools, equal opportunity etc. You know those basic things that are available to some Americans. That's all!

OBAMACAN wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:29 AM:Yet again, we see in the letter from Rita McGranahan how easily duped some people are by slick Republican campaign propaganda, as she joins earlier letter writer Michael Gerson (July 24) in gushing over what a wonderful first lady Cindy McCain would be, while glossing over the more unsavory aspects of her very troubled, spoiled past. Let's compare (again) Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama:
Cindy McCain:
She is a rich heiress who inherited all her money as Daddy's only child and sole heir.
She met McCain when she was 24 and he 42 and still married to and living with the first wife who had waited for him through his years of POW captivity.
She has a history of drug addiction, including admissions of stealing drugs from a charity she was involved with. Oh well, we can see the ulterior motives behind her "volunteer charity work."
The company she inherited from Daddy is the nation's largest BEER distributor, with extensive lobbying activities opposing efforts by MADD to limit DUI and underage drinking risks, so extensive that McCain has had to repeatedly recuse himself when alcohol industry interests have come up for vote or appeared before his committees. How can a president recuse himself?
Michelle Obama
Born to poverty and disadvantage on the mean streets of the South Side of Chicago, overcame obstacles to make steady academic and professional achievements, completing a degree from Princeton University and then a law degree from Harvard University -- a truly self-made record of achievement
Instead of inheriting wealth from a rich beer distributor, had a father with a medical disability who showed a work ethic by showing up to a city job every day
Found a quality husband of her own, not needing to steal someone else's husband
Became a highly respected attorney working for a law firm and later a hospital
References:
L.A. Times: "McCain's broken marriage factured other ties as well" by Richard A. Serrano and Ralph Vartabedian, Friday July 11, 2008, p. A1 cont'd to A14-15
Newsweek: "In Search of Cindy McCain" by Holly Bailey, June 30, 2008, p. 20-27

I'm sure Ron (who is consistently allowed to submit fraudulent "facts" that could not be verified) will again excoriate me for bringing the candidates' wives into the discussion, instead of holding responsible the pro-McCain letter-writer who actually introduced the subject.

And to Wondering at 9:37 a.m., yes, Obama did make the two statements you said. But, yes, he has also made many other statements, including ones I have heard from him in person, on the points I cited. Just because he did not make them at the same time, or you haven't read or heard enough to be exposed to them (yet you still ramble on the subject anyway) doesn't mean he didn't say them.

hardtack wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:31 AM:Gosh, Larry Klassen, lighten up! Cutting taxes would be like cutting off Santa Clause at his boot tops – I have never heard an idea so cruel and heartless!

Ron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:32 AM:New poll out today, now 51% of all Californians say Drilling of the coast is a good idea.
But I want you to read something by our own Senator Barbara "The Bouncer" Boxer, and her views on this:

QUOTE: "The appropriate question is if you knew you could get more energy from efficiency and clean technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal, would you rather do that or drill along our pristine coast and risk harming a multibillion-dollar tourism, fishing and recreation economy?" END Quote

Now, let's address a couple of things here. Does she understand anything about the current national fleet, or is she inhaling something? I mean.. really!

If you mandated the efficiency of cafe standards today, you would not realize that offset for 9-13 years, depending on how quickly the car companies could roll them out. It would take 18 years to completely change over the national fleet, with car companies fully able to employ, and deploy the technologies needed, which obviously our American car manufacturer's are behind the 8-ball on. Or we could talk about Honda, and some Japanese companies, who to date, have rolled out 24 hydrogen cars, but "a fleet" is way beyond 2015, according to them. They hope.. HOPE to have 1500 vehicles by 2013.
Or we could talk about inflating tires?

Two..
Notice how she does not seem to differentiate between oil/gas and solar, wind and geothermal? She lumps them altogether, as if cars can currently run on electrical power.

Now, unless she is talking about golf carts, then this woman has not got a clue.

T. Boone addressed this very issue, he says to use natural gas, which is cleaner, and would be less costly to deploy. But, of course Bab's wouldn't know that, now.. would she?
And it's a good idea, and something she's not familiar with, at all.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:40 AM:4,127 Dead American Troops in Iraq alone, so far.
30,324 Wounded American Troops in Iraq alone, so far.
Do we have OBL yet?
Regards, Alf.

Hey Obama wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:41 AM:I believe most Americans want to elect a president of the United States, not a gas station attendant at a German road house.

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:50 AM:OBAMA MAMA
…. Mama saw that McCain campaign ad on the John Stewart Comedy Show last night, proclaiming Obama as “the greatest celebrity in the world”, showing him with a quarter of a million Berliners greeting him like a rock star last week. Man that was impressive! We haven’t had a president win such favor with our allies since John F. Kennedy. They were all waving American flags, and shouting O-BAM-A ! O-BAM-A ! O-BAM-A! Thrilled my heart to know there is still such a latent good feeling for what America used to mean to them as a moral and enlightened leader of the free world.

Then McCain showed those two beautiful celebrities, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, flanking Obama on each side. Can’t quite figure out what these two have to do with Barack Obama. But what I really can’t figure out is why McCain spent all that money on an ad that is so favorable for Senator Obama.

Then the McCain ad stated that Obama is the greatest celebrity, but asked if he is ready to lead. Mama know the answer to that question. Good ad. Mama LIKED it. It was very a favorable ad for Obama.

Greenergy wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:58 AM:Hardtack at 10:12 a.m. asks if free market forces might have something to do with the rapid drop in gas prices. I recommend the OBAMACAN post at 6:44 a.m. which notes that after years of people talking about offshore drilling, in which gas prices kept leaping upward as speculators drooled over new opportunities, all of a sudden "you get Al Gore from the left and T. Boone Pickens from the right, talking about becoming energy independent NOW and it strikes terror into the hearts of the oil speculators and all of a sudden prices retreat."
The 6:44 a.m. post has much more info and I have nothing to add in this submission

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:01 AM:Yes, that is exactly what Obama was talking about -- the "new" sources.

And yes it is only a small part of the total.

So would YOU like to run the numbers with me -- the NEW sources v air in tires and tune-ups?

As the only anti-free enterprise Libertarian I have ever seen, you should have a ball with these numbers.

Ready to start?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:04 AM:Yes, Obama, you don't look like any of those guys on our money. Unlike Washington, you didn't command an army or run a country for eight years. Unlike Jackson you didn't win a giant victory at New Orleans. Unlike Hamilton you didn't help create a constitution or help run a country. Unlike Grant you didn't win a war that freed blacks and united the nation. Unlike Franklin you didn't help create and mold the great country we are now."
The same could be said of John McCain, sdraoul or me. Obama never claimed any great history with the currency. He alluded to the fact that he did not look like any of the men on the currency. Neither does anybody else. Bye the way, when is the likeness of an American heroine going to adorn one of our paper currencies? She whomever it will be does not look like any of the men on the bills.

wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:06 AM:sdraoul: Obama does not have to pander for the black vote. Polls show that he already has 94% of it.

SOLON wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:12 AM:== Cindy as First Lady? ==

Cindy looks so charming and beautiful and demure. A letter writer today thinks she would make a great First Lady. Well, the folks in Arizona know all about Cindy McCain. She lives amongst them. Now I guess anybody who has inherited as much wealth as Cindy is bound to mixed up in a money scandal sooner or later. With Cindy McCain it was sooner.

Back during the height of the height of revelations about John McCain as one of the Keating Five crooks in the humongous meltdown of savings and loans across the nation, information came out about Cindy McCain’s partnership with Charles Keating. There was some real back-scratching and money in the pocket stuffing going on.

In the archives of Newsday, dated December 1, 1989, I found this in an article:

QUOTE: “The Senate Ethics Committee will seek a detailed study of a real estate partnership involving developer Charles Keating Jr. and the wife of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), according to Senate sources.
Involved is an investment by Cindy McCain and her father, James Hensley, in a $15-million Phoenix, Ariz., shopping center. The $359,000 investment, made through a Hensley company subsidiary in which Cindy McCain had 41 percent ownership and her father 51 percent, makes them the largest single investors in the project originally financed, built and managed by Keating. The investment by the senator's relatives was made in 1986 after Keating was already in a bitter feud with federal regulators alarmed over his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan. END of Quote.

Old Timer wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:21 AM:Response to Donald Ream - You are correct in stating that the NY Times is not a Conservative newspaper and that the media has cuddled up to Obama recently, but regarding our current president, this man does not have a clue.

For a large society like ours to function correctly, our systems need to be properly managed, which they have not been. Health care, Transportation, Infrastructure, Food Safety, Financial system, education, border control, Emergency response, law enforcement etc. etc. have been abused or neglected to a point of failure. Our president is the only person elected by all the people and offers the guidance and leadership needed for good administration of our country. This president has allowed our systems to faulter and has taken a do nothing approach for our falling dollar, strengthening our government systems that protect us, has appointed unqualified department heads etc. etc. and stands by and watches as things go bad. I.E. his quote that he knows nothing about the economy, is a prime example of his do nothing ways. While you can argue the Iraq and Conservative media bias, our current GOP President has been nothing but a total failure and deserves all the criticism he gets.

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:22 AM:Hey, Alf! What is your ‘Libertarian” position on “Big Oil” sending their “excess profits” to a the fund to provide $500/person to the lower 40% (or non-income taxpayers) of the population?

Shocking News Just In wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:23 AM:Ron and sdraoul will not be voting for Barack Obama.

Good Grief wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:40 AM:Wondering[-] wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:22 AM: Don't know about Alf. I do know that I would not be for it. I would be for the reduction of the "excess profits" as they are a threat to national security and our national economy. Oil is our life blood until an alternative is found and developed.

ShawnP wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:41 AM:Just got done reading some interesting info on Snopes.com:
1. Obama removed the American flag from his aircraft, and replaced it with "his symbol"; yet, he wants to represent the WHOLE country, each and every one of us?
2. He has hinted that, if elected President, he wants the words to the National Anthem changed, or the National Anthem replaced.

In a previous post, someone commented about the "adoring crowd chanting 'O-BA-MA'" and "it's great to see the USA welcomed"; then, why weren't they chanting, "U-S-A"?

And, no, I'm not voting for McCain, either....

Faux Chuckles wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:43 AM:Jerry Sarnataro of Fallbrook said:
It is time to vote in Robert Hamilton, a Vietnam vet, Naval Reserve officer, with a son who is an Iraq war vet, and kick Issa back to his auto alarm business.
I agree, the nitwits that bought the company from Issa are ruining it, and laying hard working people off left and right to cover their losses.

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:44 AM:... It’s the First Ladies

It’s the first ladies, or there’s nothing to talk about. There’s nothing about JOHN McCain to talk about. There’s no THERE there. He ain’t gonna be around very long -- maybe two mediocre years at best, and then who would take over. So Cindy is more interesting because she’s got a little more up there.

And MAMA find Michele even more interesting to talk about than her fine husband. How about this: nominate Michele as Barack’s running mate. Why not? We almost nominated Hillary, and we’ve never had a husband-wife presidential succession. When Barack is elected, we have another historic first. But if McCain was to be elected, we would have two idiots in succession. Has that ever happened before?

Well, these are changing times. Historic times. Nothing is the same anymore.

Im no Ron but neither are the majority of voters wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:45 AM:We're reminded in the pearl of wisdom, "New poll out today, now 51% of all Californians say Drilling of the coast is a good idea."

I don't get the point.

If memory serves me correct, GW Bush won the presidency with about the same percentage of the popular vote, but if you ask anyone today if they would vote for him again, the number is significantly less.

I have a friend, who last night, thought 4 Long Island Ice Teas at happy hour was a good idea. He's not thinking the same thing today!

Nice try, though!

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:46 AM:Well, "Wondering" at 11:01AM, I must warn you, I spent over 3 years of my life as an auto mechanic.
In 15 years my father racked up over 750,000 miles,
over 185,000 miles on one rotary engine,
over 150,000 miles on another rotary engine,
over 135,000 miles on another rotary engine,
and got over 120,000 miles per set on 3 different sets of tires,
as well as over 100,000 miles per set on the rest.
We are both fanatics when it comes to proper tire inflation, I'm not talking about manufacturers recommended psi (usually too low so that you get a soft ride), I'm talking about what about the pressure that makes the tire wear evenly.
I know of what I speak.
As far as tune-ups,
old plugs cost fuel economy,
dirty air filters cost fuel economy,
bad or marginal plug wires cost fuel economy,
"jackrabbit" starts and screeching stops cost fuel economy.
Go ahead and "lay it on me",
but don't be surprised if I can easily refute your "points" via personal experience, professional experience, AAA information and a host of other sources.
The increase in fuel economy can easily be 25 percent, say, from 20 mpg to 25mpg.
I welcome the challenge.
Regards, Alf.

liberaljim wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:46 AM:Ron's 9:24 lecture to liberals is hilarious. He doesn't know any of us, yet he presumes to know what we read, who our associates are, and how we make our political decisions. He assures us that "education is a lifelong practise (sic)," implying that our liberal minds are closed to further learning. You've got to love the irony of misspelling a word while chastising us for lack of furthering our own education. Ron actually described himself to a tee! He's funny enough with his ceaseless war on communism and socialism and his endless praise of unregulated capitalism which at this very moment is collapsing from the weight of its own greed and corruption. The economy is a mess, our neighbors are losing their jobs and their homes, but at least Ron is always good for a laugh.

gracchus wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:49 AM:ron, in your attack against THE NEW YORK TIMES, you are providing only part of the story.
first i will agree with you about the naivite of many leftist journals in the mid-20th century. many refused to recognize the horrendous crimes of stalin and his government. you will recall that molotoviribbentrop pact caused no small consternation and confusion among leftist circles. you will also recall that the great socialist writer, george orwell, was disrespected by many socialists for writing ANIMAL FARM and 1984.
you distort the facts when you claim that THE TIMES supported nazi causes. can you tell us specifically what nazi cause THE TIMES supported?
THE TIMES and other english-languages were documenting the anti-semitic policies of the hitler government throughout the 1930s. but to claim that during the second world war it was covering up the holocaust is nonsense. you are looking at the 1940s from the perspective of 2008. few people in the west knew what was happening in the nazi concentration camps. escapees from the camps told their stories to incredulous decison-makers in britain and the usa. the enormity of what the nazis had done was not comprehended by the world until the camps were liberated by allied forces. THE TIMES did not engage in a cover-up of the holocaust because the nazis did such a good job of it themselves.
i do believe contemporary journalists, some working for THE TIMES, their investigative duties as the bush administration sought to gain support to invade iraq. judith miller is the most egregious example. she reported claims from bush administration officials about the threat that saddam posed to the usa. then these very officials cited the THE TIMES, to which they had reported their claims, as evidence that saddam was a threat.
if you want to criticize THE NEW YORK TIMES, ron, you don't need to make false claims about their negligence. telling the truth is much more effective.

Alf wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:50 AM:Well, "Wondering" at 11:22AM,
I'm all for it IF
it is voluntary,
NOT government mandated.
Regards, Alf

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:06 PM:… Paris Hilton’s jealous?

MAMA liked that ad glorifying Obama as the greatest celebrity in the world, even greater than Paris Hilton. But Paris did not like the ad. I think she might be a little jealous of Barack being Number 1, and Barack ain’t even in the White House yet! But then I read that the Hilton family doesn’t like the McCain ad they see it as a put down for the family. Seems Grandpa Hilton is the one who is really riled up about what McCain did.

The McCain campaign office received a furious phone call from Hilton's grandfather, William Barron Hilton (co-chairman of the Hilton Hotel empire), who took issue with the comparison of Senator Obama to his granddaughter.
Donor records show William Hilton has given $18,400 to the McCain campaign, and $35,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the past two years. Paris' father, Rick Hilton, has also given $6900 to the McCain campaign.

Don’t seem too smart to MAMA to bite the hand that feeds you. Maybe McCain don’t know who feeds the rich politicians in the land. My O’ MY! Is the way McCain is gonna run the White House?

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:19 PM:Gosh, Alf, I don't know if federal GAO reports quoted yesterday), and statistical data can EVER compete with your father's personal experience. It seems so unfair!

But what we are talking about is the American population, and what THEY can, or will do, not what some individual hypermiler is willing to do.

There are people, today, getting 100 MPG by turning off their engines while going downhill -- you can Google "hypermiling" and find that there are lots of those people.

What we are talking about is the American general population saving as much fuel as can be drilled offshore and ANWR by running their tires at RECOMMENDED tire pressures and getting "regular" tune-ups!

My racing pressures were 50 PSI, but I don't drive the streets at that pressure. Both of my cars have a "regular" tune-up at 90,000 miles because of VASTLY increased electronic ignition design, from your shade-tree mechanic days, and my racing days.

Do you believe that America can equal the amount of drilled oil by getting the population to run recommended tire pressures and getting tune-ups at factory recommended intervals -- or do you suggest that Obama wants in his simple two sentences, a nation of hypermilers?

Bill One wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:20 PM:Alf, I too used to be an auto mechanic, you are right on about the tire inflation and your other observations about proper care and driving of an auto. See, even though I am conservative I am a big boy and willing to give credit where it is due.

Solution wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:22 PM:Wondering[-] wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:37 AM:
Send the Marines.

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:23 PM:Alf at 11:50: I doubt if Obama has "voluntary" in mind.

I just downloaded the 6 page (Headline)"BARACK OBAMA’S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC PLAN
(Subhead)TAKE THE EXCESS PROFITS OF OIL COMPANIES TO HELP WORKING
FAMILIES DEAL WITH ENERGY COSTS WITH NEW $1,000 REBATE CHECKS
AND ENACT A $50 BILLION PACKAGE TO SAVE 1 MILLION JOBS"

I suggest you do the same. Please note the first word of the subhead, "TAKE"

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:31 PM:Solution: No need for the Marines, the left has the answer.

We could approach the energy problem like the Socialist government of Spain has done – set highway speed limits to 50, in-town limits to 25, thermometers in public buildings to 78, turning off half the street lights...

We need to do less, drive less, work less -- oh, yes, and earn more. It is only "fair."

Bill One wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:34 PM:I certainly don't agree with much Obama says. But earlier Ron wrote that you can learn something from everyone. I too subscribe to that thought. Obamas' coment about tires and tunes ups is good advice. I am an avid off roader. A few years ago I purchased a Jeep Wrangler and at the time it was only getting about 13-14 MPG. After I did a tune up and replace the oxygen sensor the milage went to 17-18. What was suprising to me is that even before the tune up, it passed a smog check. Anyway, my point is, it's in your own intrest to keep your vehicle in top shape. It cuts your expenese and cuts fuel use. I am not voting for Obama, but that was good advice from him.

Wondering wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:41 PM:Obamacan: A simple question on the Barak Obama Emergency Economic Plan.

In the subhead, it says "Take excess profits of oil companies..."

The largest oil companies are: Saudi Arabian Oil Company, National Iranian Oil Company, Qatar Petroleum, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Iraq National Oil Company, Gazprom (Russia), Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, and National Oil Corporation (Libya).

Does Barack intend to send the Marines to "take" those excess profits? (As "solution" suggested might be his plan, at 12:22?)

Egalitarian wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:50 PM:Well Now, what really burns me up about people (or big corporations) who make “too much” money is that they bury it in their yard, or hide it in their mattress. If the government would just take more of their money, bureaucrats and politicians could find creative ways to uses it.

Rich people and big corporations are so stupid about using their money and creating new products and ideas, I don’t know how they got so rich in the first place – they must be robbing the poor consumers.

Press Gallery wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:55 PM:Is anyone following the fiasco as the House adjourned this morning for a five week vacation, over the objection of Republicans who were trying to stop the adjournment in order to address the energy problem?

The Democrats adjourned, and turned off the lights and the microphones of the Republicans.

One Republican Congressman went over to the vacant Democrat side and held up a photo of the Democratic Party energy plan -- a VW with an attached sail!

The press is covering it in the dark.

Yes We Can wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:18 PM:ShawnP[-] wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:41 AM:
The American flag was removed from Obama's plane. So what? Perhaps, Obama did not want any confusion as to when he was representing his campaign or our country.
The national anthem is just goofy and untrue. Lastly, why would the Germans be chaning USA USA USA. Wasn't the waving of American flags by Germans in attendance enough for you. They came to see and to hear Obama. That is why they changed his name.