The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

If you want more thorough coverage, find newspapers (NOT TV news) that have people on the ground. The Post, The Chicago Tribune, NYT, probably others. They will give you the best, most complete picture.

That's how I know the things I know, among other reasons

 

Watching the talking heads on TV makes me want to throw a f***ing brick at the wall, I swear to God those guys are so dumb and they have no idea what they're talking about. The general level of commentary in this country is abysmal, it's hard to participate in or witness an intelligent, realistic discussion about the war.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The surge is one factor of about 3 or 4 major factors that have contributed to the reduction in violence.

I still strongly believe that the primary reason that violence has decreased is because moqtada al sadr has called for a cease fire.

My personal belief that it is political. He's waiting until the US elections are over. Once the US starts to pull out, he'll open the war again. If we stay, he'll start the war again in retaliation for us staying.

 

I strongly believe the "surge" is a minor and coincidental event. The real story is moqtada al sadr.

[southsider2k5]

I still strongly believe that the primary reason that violence has decreased is because moqtada al sadr has called for a cease fire.

My personal belief that it is political. He's waiting until the US elections are over. Once the US starts to pull out, he'll open the war again. If we stay, he'll start the war again in retaliation for us staying.

 

I strongly believe the "surge" is a minor and coincidental event. The real story is moqtada al sadr.

 

Whatever it is, Obama will now be able to say he was for it before he was against it...

[bmags]

Christian Science Monitor has good Iraq coverage as well.

[lostfan]

The Christian Science Monitor is pretty reliable all-around, IMO.

[Cknolls]

From Congress Daily:

 

Democratic and Republican congressional aides say there is turmoil within the the House Homeland Security Committee's majority staff and that oversight work is being eclipsed by a focus on promoting contracting opportunities for small and minority-owned businesses. Sources who spoke only if they could remain anonymous said they are particularly concerned that the committee's new staff director, I. Lanier Avant, does not have the qualifications to lead the committee and faces a conflict of interest because he continues to serve as chief of staff in House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson's congressional office. They expressed concern that Avant must balance his duties on Thompson's personal staff, which includes attention to politics and fundraising, and managing the heavy responsibilities of running the committee, which he began doing last month. Avant does not have a security clearance. Sources said that raises questions about his ability to make decisions on issues involving classified information. Speaking candidly with CongressDaily, Avant said he does "the bulk of [Thompson's] political work."

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

From Congress Daily:

 

Democratic and Republican congressional aides say there is turmoil within the the House Homeland Security Committee's majority staff and that oversight work is being eclipsed by a focus on promoting contracting opportunities for small and minority-owned businesses. Sources who spoke only if they could remain anonymous said they are particularly concerned that the committee's new staff director, I. Lanier Avant, does not have the qualifications to lead the committee and faces a conflict of interest because he continues to serve as chief of staff in House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson's congressional office. They expressed concern that Avant must balance his duties on Thompson's personal staff, which includes attention to politics and fundraising, and managing the heavy responsibilities of running the committee, which he began doing last month. Avant does not have a security clearance. Sources said that raises questions about his ability to make decisions on issues involving classified information. Speaking candidly with CongressDaily, Avant said he does "the bulk of [Thompson's] political work."

 

I have no idea what any of that means. I read "blah blah blah". lol

 

Can someone smarter than me explain this?

[Cknolls]

For all of you writing (or reading about) how much ANWR, OCS and other increased domestic production would affect the price of gas, please note what Sen. Schumer just said on the floor about the impact of increased production in Saudi Arabia.

 

 

“If they produced half a million barrels more oil a day the price would come down a very significant amount and, at the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil.”

 

 

Keep in mind, ANWR alone is projected to produce one million barrels a day, every day. In fact, if President Clinton had not vetoed legislation opening up a small portion of ANWR thirteen years ago (1995), a million barrels a day would be flowing from ANWR right now, helping to keep prices down at the pump.

 

 

So if Sen. Schumer believes that a half million barrels a day from SAUDIA ARABIA would cause the price of oil to “come down a very significant amount,” just think what a million barrels—produced here in AMERICA through AMERICAN jobs—would do to lower the price of gas.

 

 

Don’t take it from me, take it from the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I have never understood how we can be told straight faced that a little supply wouldn't change the prices but a few cents a barrel, when the anecdotal evidence of even small supply shutdowns on a temporary basis causing large price spikes. Its bogus.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Isnt some of the argument that America doenst have the refining capacity for an increase in supply?

[mr_genius]

For all of you writing (or reading about) how much ANWR, OCS and other increased domestic production would affect the price of gas, please note what Sen. Schumer just said on the floor about the impact of increased production in Saudi Arabia.

 

 

“If they produced half a million barrels more oil a day the price would come down a very significant amount and, at the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil.”

 

 

Keep in mind, ANWR alone is projected to produce one million barrels a day, every day. In fact, if President Clinton had not vetoed legislation opening up a small portion of ANWR thirteen years ago (1995), a million barrels a day would be flowing from ANWR right now, helping to keep prices down at the pump.

 

 

So if Sen. Schumer believes that a half million barrels a day from SAUDIA ARABIA would cause the price of oil to “come down a very significant amount,” just think what a million barrels—produced here in AMERICA through AMERICAN jobs—would do to lower the price of gas.

 

 

Don’t take it from me, take it from the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

 

 

 

When Schumer gives these speeches there is no real logic or reason besides him getting more face time on tv. He's a complete doofus. Nothing he ever says seems to be thought out. It would never occur to him that we would be better off producing more oil in the US. He just has some idiotic plan to force Saudi Arabia to pump more oil.

Edited July 16, 2008 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Isnt some of the argument that America doenst have the refining capacity for an increase in supply?

But transportation costs alone should be less, no?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

But transportation costs alone should be less, no?

possibly. but what I thought I read was that we could be pumping a billion barrels a day out of alaska or Texas and it still wouldnt help since we physically cant turn it into a usable product fast enough. I believe US refineries are running at near 100% capacity. Building refineries needs to be step one in my opinion.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

possibly. but what I thought I read was that we could be pumping a billion barrels a day out of alaska or Texas and it still wouldnt help since we physically cant turn it into a usable product fast enough. I believe US refineries are running at near 100% capacity. Building refineries needs to be step one in my opinion.

Actually this is already happening. They're not building new refineries, but thanks to government mandates and subsidies, they've been expanding them quite rapidly. More rapidly than oil production can keep up with actually.

 

According to data from the EIA, and a bit of simple math (calculating a 12 month moving average) Over the last year U.S. refineries have been operating at about 88.2% of capacity, and that number is dropping sharply (for the last 4 months it's down to 85-86% or lower). The last time that the U.S. had such a low percentage of its refinery capacity utilized was early in 1992.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Actually this is already happening. They're not building new refineries, but thanks to government mandates and subsidies, they've been expanding them quite rapidly. More rapidly than oil production can keep up with actually.

 

According to data from the EIA, and a bit of simple math (calculating a 12 month moving average) Over the last year U.S. refineries have been operating at about 88.2% of capacity, and that number is dropping sharply (for the last 4 months it's down to 85-86% or lower). The last time that the U.S. had such a low percentage of its refinery capacity utilized was early in 1992.

 

I stand corrected. interesting information.

[southsider2k5]

Actually this is already happening. They're not building new refineries, but thanks to government mandates and subsidies, they've been expanding them quite rapidly. More rapidly than oil production can keep up with actually.

 

According to data from the EIA, and a bit of simple math (calculating a 12 month moving average) Over the last year U.S. refineries have been operating at about 88.2% of capacity, and that number is dropping sharply (for the last 4 months it's down to 85-86% or lower). The last time that the U.S. had such a low percentage of its refinery capacity utilized was early in 1992.

 

The last report was 89.5% down from 89.8%. It was 89.2% the week before. 88.6 the week before that and 89.3 the prior week. You are looking at numbers that are 3-4 months old. We have been in the 88-90% range pretty consistantly over the last month to six weeks as I recall off of the top of my head, and a little google news backtracking.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Now they are saying Jesse dropped the "N" word too...

 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...17002&imw=Y

 

Rev. Jackson allegedly used ’n-word’ on Fox News

 

By Christi Parsons • Chicago Tribune • July 16, 2008

 

* Read Comments(83)

* Recommend

* Print this page

* E-mail this article

 

* Share this article:

* Del.icio.us

* Facebook

* Digg

* Reddit

* Newsvine

* What’s this?

 

WASHINGTON — Rev. Jesse Jackson was apparently caught on tape using the “n-word,” the racial epithet term he has railed against for years, adding an ironic new twist to the controversy over his recent remarks about Barack Obama during an off-air break in a televised interview.

Advertisement

 

A chagrined Jackson issued a renewed apology to the Democratic presidential candidate late Wednesday while traveling overseas, without specifically confessing to using the racial slur while he waited to speak on a recent Fox News program.

 

Advisers to Jackson declined to confirm that Jackson used the word, but Fox host Bill O’Reilly said in an evening interview that Jackson did use the term. O’Reilly said that when he broke the original story several days ago, he had withheld the incendiary comment because he didn’t want to create that sort of controversy.

 

Fox has not aired the clip containing that word nor released a transcript containing it, though someone with access — a “weasel,” in O’Reilly’s description — leaked the information.

 

Friends and family say Jackson is deeply pained by the controversy, begun earlier this month after he whispered to a fellow guest on “Fox & Friends” during a break that Obama was “talking down to black people.”

 

In the interview Wednesday evening, O’Reilly said that when Jackson used the offensive word, he was not referring to Obama.

 

“He is personally and professionally devastated,” Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., the reverend’s son, said late Wednesday night. Without acknowledging any specific remarks beyond those aired on Fox over the past week, the younger Jackson said he hopes people can “find room in their hearts to forgive him and move on.”

 

Obama accepted Jackson’s apology last week. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday the senator had no additional comment.

 

The latest development is all the more shocking given Jackson’s history, not just as a civil rights leader in general but as a crusader against use of that specific word in particular. A preacher devoted to the idea that language can transform the way people think, Jackson has repeatedly called on members of the entertainment industry to stop using the word. He even urged a boycott of sales of “Seinfeld” episodes after actor Michael Richards used the word during a stand-up routine.

 

Jackson apologized for saying that Obama was talking down to black people, using a vulgarity directed at Obama, after the comments aired last week, and his son went a step further with a statement that verged on outrage.

 

Then, as news of the additional comments was beginning to surface on Wednesday, Jackson issued a new statement.

 

“I am deeply saddened and distressed by the pain and sorrow that I have caused as a result of my hurtful words,” he said in a statement issued while he was in Madrid. “I apologize again to Senator Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, their children as well as to the American public. There really is no justification for my comments and I hope that the Obama family and the American public will forgive me.

 

“I also pray that we, as a nation, can move on to address the real issues that affect the American people.”

 

An aide to Jackson neither acknowledged nor denied use of the racial slur, saying only that the reverend decided to issue a new statement because of the level of controversy that continues.

 

“He just felt he needed to apologize again,” said spokeswoman Althea Conyers.

 

But the younger Jackson said his father feels terrible about the whole mess and is speaking a heartfelt apology.

 

“I hope that this unfortunate moment and lapse in judgment will be balanced against an extraordinary career,” the congressman said. “More importantly, at this hour, I hope the American people and the people who have been enlightened and who have benefited from his service can find room in their hearts to forgive him and move on.”

[NorthSideSox72]

But transportation costs alone should be less, no?

But the cost of production - labor, specifically - will be higher by a lot.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Now they are saying Jesse dropped the "N" word too...

 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...17002&imw=Y

doesnt Jackson tell black people how to behave on a daily basis?

[southsider2k5]

doesnt Jackson tell black people how to behave on a daily basis?

 

I don't know why I am surprised, but I was. The man needs to look in the mirror and not the camera for once.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't know why I am surprised, but I was. The man needs to look in the mirror and not the camera for once.

[southsider2k5]

10 years? Oh Really?

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...TFlMjlmODllYTM=

 

Senator McCain, This Is Your Issue

 

FactCheck.org:

 

Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

 

Want a real fast-track alternative? How about the California oil that could be produced within one year that Larry Kudlow and the American Thinker discussed?

 

A Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst said in a report there is a lot of offshore crude that can be produced relatively quickly. The problem: It is located off California, where politicians have built careers opposing new drilling.

 

The Minerals Management Service said that of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in off-limits coastal areas, almost 10 billion are off the coast of California.

 

"California could actually start producing new oil within a year if the moratorium were lifted," the Sanford C. Bernstein report said, because the oil is under shallow water, has been explored and drilling platforms have been there since before the moratoria.

 

Are you paying attention, Senator McCain? Start beating the drum on this. There's 10 billion barrels out there. The drilling platforms are still in place. As Sundries Shack notes, if we accessed just one tenth of that, this supply alone could keep the entire country running for seven weeks.

 

The Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires September 30. Lead the fight on this, Senator McCain. This is victory, right here. Make Obama choose between his environmental base and Americans struggling with $4 a gallon gas. One side or the other will be livid with him.

 

07/17 10:43 AM

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know why I am surprised, but I was. The man needs to look in the mirror and not the camera for once.

 

 

 

Apologizzzzzze....

 

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008...ll-media-notice

 

Rather Calls Obama 'Osama Bin Laden,' Will Media Notice?

By D. S. Hube (Bio | Archive)

July 18, 2008 - 11:02 ET

 

 

On this morning's "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, co-host Tiki Barber asked guest Dan Rather about his feelings regarding the recent Jesse Jackson imbroglio -- his "off mike" comments about Barack Obama. In the middle of praising Jackson, Rather referred to Barack Obama as "Osama bin Laden" -- and none of the four "Morning Joe" co-hosts reacted (nor did Rather).

 

Question: Will the media pick this up? That one of America's longest-serving network news anchors referred to one of the two presidential candidates as the world's most wanted terrorist -- and no one in the room seemed to notice?

 

While you ponder, here's what the former anchor of the "CBS Evening News" said (h/t to FiveThirtyEight who first noticed this blunder!):

 

RATHER: ...with Jesse Jackson, and I realize this is not popular to say with a lot of people, but I have a respect for Jesse Jackson. That he was an important figure in paving the way for an Osama bin Laden to appear.

[lostfan]

LOL, I actually heard that line this morning and I didn't realize that's what he was saying. I was wondering why it seemed like such a non-sequitor.