New Developments III

[OscarGuy]

As if we didn't all know that McCain's campaign would model itself after all Republican campaigns in the last 7 years...so much for McCain being able to say that he's not made of the same cloth as Bush. I just hope Obama can turn this comment against him.

McCain aide says Obama has Sept. 10 mind-set 23 minutes ago



NEW YORK - Republican John McCain's campaign accused Barack Obama of having a dangerous and naive Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism because the Democrat spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

In a conference call with reporters, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said Tuesday: "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set. ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face." Former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."

The Obama campaign quickly responded with its own conference call in which Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations, argued the McCain campaign was emulating Karl Rove, President Bush's former political adviser.

"I'm a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics ... to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans," Clarke said.

GOP criticism of the presumed Democratic nominee echoed the words of Rove, who in January 2006 said Republicans have a post-Sept. 11 view of the world and Democrats a pre-9/11 view. Eleven months later, the GOP lost control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

At issue were Obama's comments Monday in an interview with ABC News. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.

Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Kerry, who as the 2004 Democratic nominee faced Republican claims that he was soft on terror, accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" by siding with Bush's policies — particularly with respect to the Iraq war.

"The U.S. is less safe, less respected and less able to lead in the world, and that is the record John McCain has chosen to embrace," Kerry said.

[Damien]

Let's hope he can get those extra 3 points . . .

From Think Progress:

Bush, Cheney, and Rice sink to lowest ratings ever.»
A new Harris poll finds that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are now registering their lowest approval ratings ever. Some highlights:

– President Bush’s latest ratings are 24 percent positive and fully 75 percent negative. Previously, his worst numbers were 26 percent positive and 72 percent negative in April of this year. His ratings are substantially worse than those of any president, except for Jimmy Carter (22%-77% in July 1980), since Harris first started measuring them in 1963.

– Vice President Cheney’s ratings are even worse, 18 percent positive and 74 percent negative, compared to his previous low of 21 percent positive, 74 percent negative last July.

– Secretary of State Rice’s ratings are much better than those of the President and Vice President, but also have fallen to their lowest point ever, 39 percent positive and 54 percent negative, compared to 42 percent positive and 51 percent negative last October.

Digg It!

[OscarGuy]

Drilling? Short term solution? You are an idiot. Do you know how long it takes for drilled oil to make it into production? Months, perhaps even years and especially in place that don't already have a drilling operation set up. That would take years and we're not talking just a couple. And most of what we're drilling now goes into the reserve, so it doesn't help the consumer at all. A SHORT term solution is so stop depositing into the reserve to quickly infuse the supply, thus decreasing demand on foreign oil.

And while we're at it, why don't all these oil companies spend the money to increase the production of gas? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in over a decade (and it might even be two decades at this point). And it's been several years since existing refineries have been upgraded to increase the amount of gasoline made from one barrel of oil. The technology exists, but we're using decades-old technology for refining oil.

And whether you believe it or not, these record profits from the oil companies could be used to decrease the price of gas. After all, it's the oil companies that determine gas prices.

[criddic3]

How about instead of "drilling here. Now.", the US work on alternative fuels? It is a fact much of North America depends on foreign oil, and they have the upper hand, don't they? (Refer to my previous post re the US losing the war in the long run)

I say we need to do both. Drilling here for the more short term solution and alternative fuels for the long term solution. We can do both.

--

GET READY FOR THE OIL-PRICE DROP
By ALAN REYNOLDS


June 6, 2008 -- THE price of crude oil has jumped as high as $135 lately, up from $87 in early February. The news encouraged some Wall Street analysts to suggest oil might approach $200 before long. In fact, that's quite impossible: The world economy can't handle current energy prices, much less a big increase.
Which in turn means that oil prices will fall.

Market analysts often claim oil prices are almost entirely determined by supply. Demand is said to be insensitive ("inelastic") to price. The standard example is that many Americans have to drive to work and most gas-guzzling SUVs will still be on the road even if the affluent few can trade theirs for a Prius. Whatever the price, we'll pay it.

This idea rests on two fallacies. The first is to exaggerate the United States' importance when it comes to ups and downs in worldwide oil demand. In fact, America is using no more oil than we did in 2004.

The second fallacy is to greatly exaggerate the importance of passenger cars in the United States. It's true that Americans are driving less and buying four-cylinder cars - but that's not where we should be looking for serious "demand destruction."

Two-thirds of petroleum in the United States is used for transportation - but half of the transportation sector's fuel flows into commercial trucks, trains, buses, airplanes and ships. As a result, only 44 percent of each barrel of oil is used to produce gasoline in this country, and some of that gasoline fuels business - delivery vans, landscapers' trucks, fishing boats, industrial and farm machinery, etc.

Most crude oil is used to produce diesel fuel for trucks, ships and trains, heavy fuel oil for industry, aviation fuel, asphalt, home heating oil, propane, wax, and innumerable petrochemical products ranging from detergents and drugs to synthetic fabrics and plastic.

In short, a huge share of crude oil is used to produce and distribute industrial products. That explains why the price of oil is extremely cyclical - that is, it tends to rise during economic booms and fall during contractions. It dropped 44 percent in the last recession (from November 2000 to November 2001), 48 percent from October 1990 to January 1992 - and 71 percent from July 1980 to July 1986.

Oil prices have a huge impact on producers' cost of production - profits and losses - not just on consumers' cost of living.

Firms that can't raise prices will find profit margins squeezed - and will have to cut back on production and jobs. Even if some producers of energy-intensive products can raise prices enough to cover higher energy costs, they'll nonetheless sell fewer of their products because of those higher prices. So they too will have to cut back on production and jobs.

Nine out of 10 previous postwar recessions began shortly after a big spike in the price of oil. Yet those recessions always slashed oil prices dramatically. People who have been predicting both a nasty US recession and $200 oil prices are contradicting themselves.

Recent news reports have expressed surprise that the US economy appears much stronger than the famously gloomy predictions at the start of the year. Indeed, the surprising endurance of US manufacturing and exports is one reason oil prices rose as long as they did.

But note that a US recession isn't required to bring down the price of oil. All that's needed is industrial stagnation or decline in many other countries.

In the United States and Britain, industrial production is nearly flat - only 0.2 percent higher than it was a year ago. In many other countries, however, industrial production has dropped over the past 12 months. It's down by 0.7 percent in Japan, 1.1 percent in Austria, 2.5 percent in Italy and Denmark, 2.9 percent in Canada, 5.4 percent in Greece, 5.7 percent in Singapore and 13.3 percent in Spain.

In April, industrial production also fell in India and China. Shrinking industry around the world shrinks demand for energy in general - and for oil in particular.

When the price of anything gets unbearably high, it discourages demand. The resulting drop in sales, in turn, causes inventories to pile up and the price to come down. That has proven true of overpriced houses - and it will likewise prove true of overpriced oil.

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth."

[Johnny Guitar]

I heard that foreign governments were scheming to get our precious bodily fluids ...

[cam]

How about instead of "drilling here. Now.", the US work on alternative fuels? It is a fact much of North America depends on foreign oil, and they have the upper hand, don't they? (Refer to my previous post re the US losing the war in the long run)

[criddic3]

Yes, I just read the headlines today about the big jump. That is discomforting. We really have to stop getting so much of our fuel outside. We have to drill here. Now.

I may not drive, but I do take taxis many days, and the prices are rising. It still beats putting $20 dollars or more a day into a car, but it's a problem for everyone. Thankfully, I also take the bus, which costs a fraction of all that.

[Damien]

On the economy, unemployment is 5%, a very good number and better than the three previous administrations' average.
Many economists now say that we may avoid recession completely, since there has been a slow but sure uptick in growth.

From Reuters;

The 5.5 percent unemployment rate in May, which jumped an unexpected half a percentage point, is the steepest monthly rise in more than two decades.

And from the hardly liberal Forbes:

Perfect Storm For Wall Street Slide
Steve Schaefer, 06.06.08, 12:45 PM ET

Surprise weakness in the May jobs report and skyrocketing oil prices pounded stocks in New York Friday erasing all of Thursday's gains.

The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls lost 49,000 jobs last month, after shedding 28,000 jobs in April according to revised figures, but the figure caused barely a ripple compared with the unemployment rate, which jumped to a surprising 5.5%, up from 5.0%. (See: "U.S. Jobs Fall For Fifth Straight Month")

Analysts had expected a mild rise, but the half-point jump caught the market by surprise and dampened enthusiasm before the opening bell, a trend that got worse in a hurry once trading began.

Major selling pressure was compounded by soaring oil prices, which were back near record levels and looming just below the $135 threshold. Crude was at $134.25 a barrel, off its daily high, but still up $6.46 for the session, and 37.4% thus far in 2008.

[Sabin]

His love is real but he is not?

[criddic3]

You poor man. Who are you listening to? You don't feel the effects othe gas price hike, or the change in the price of food?
You don't read the world news--only that sliver that supports your narrow views? You poor sad man.

No I don't. Admittedly that's because I don't drive. I see that the prices are going up, but there is little that the President or Congress can do about it.

But that is separate from saying we are winning militarily in Iraq. We are. al Qaeda is crushed, based on reports in numerous media outlets and military reports. Violence is down to its lowest since the beginnng of the war.

On the economy, unemployment is 5%, a very good number and better than the three previous administrations' average.
Many economists now say that we may avoid recession completely, since there has been a slow but sure uptick in growth.

So where do you get your info, cam? The talking points of the Democratic Party? Senator Obama? Ever read a newspaper?

People ignore the good stuff, panick when some idiot tells them there will be a huge recession, and doesn't see the truth. Things aren't great, but in reality (despite the feeling of panick) things are not as bad as you would want me to believe.

The facts are clear. The solution is simple yet not so simple. In the short term, we need to drill here for fuel. In the long term, we have to change our source of fuel from oil to something else that's reliable.

On the first solution, Democrats oppose drilling, because they care more about some fictitious polar bear crisis then they do about stopping the gas price problem. We can do it without hurting the environment for animals. On the second solution, there are many suggestions out there, from ethanol to electric cars to wind or solar power. I think that we just need to take a step back and look at things realistically. Not to panick and play the blame-game. Maybe it takes someone who isn't thrust into the middle to see clearly the whole picture.

That's what I thought. You have your head in the sand.

Are you sure you're not a robot?

[cam]

You poor man. Who are you listening to? You don't feel the effects othe gas price hike, or the change in the price of food?
You don't read the world news--only that sliver that supports your narrow views? You poor sad man.

No I don't. Admittedly that's because I don't drive. I see that the prices are going up, but there is little that the President or Congress can do about it.

But that is separate from saying we are winning militarily in Iraq. We are. al Qaeda is crushed, based on reports in numerous media outlets and military reports. Violence is down to its lowest since the beginnng of the war.

On the economy, unemployment is 5%, a very good number and better than the three previous administrations' average.
Many economists now say that we may avoid recession completely, since there has been a slow but sure uptick in growth.

So where do you get your info, cam? The talking points of the Democratic Party? Senator Obama? Ever read a newspaper?

People ignore the good stuff, panick when some idiot tells them there will be a huge recession, and doesn't see the truth. Things aren't great, but in reality (despite the feeling of panick) things are not as bad as you would want me to believe.

The facts are clear. The solution is simple yet not so simple. In the short term, we need to drill here for fuel. In the long term, we have to change our source of fuel from oil to something else that's reliable.

On the first solution, Democrats oppose drilling, because they care more about some fictitious polar bear crisis then they do about stopping the gas price problem. We can do it without hurting the environment for animals. On the second solution, there are many suggestions out there, from ethanol to electric cars to wind or solar power. I think that we just need to take a step back and look at things realistically. Not to panick and play the blame-game. Maybe it takes someone who isn't thrust into the middle to see clearly the whole picture.

That's what I thought. You have your head in the sand.

[flipp525]

panick

How ironic that you misspelled the word "panic" throughout your entire post.

If I recall correctly, you've mentioned before that you live just at or below the poverty line. What does being a Republican actually do for you, fiscally-speaking?

I'd also like you define what "winning militarily" means.

[Johnny Guitar]

:O :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That one was a 9.6. Brilliant. Bravo, author, encore!

[criddic3]

You poor man. Who are you listening to? You don't feel the effects othe gas price hike, or the change in the price of food?
You don't read the world news--only that sliver that supports your narrow views? You poor sad man.

No I don't. Admittedly that's because I don't drive. I see that the prices are going up, but there is little that the President or Congress can do about it.

But that is separate from saying we are winning militarily in Iraq. We are. al Qaeda is crushed, based on reports in numerous media outlets and military reports. Violence is down to its lowest since the beginnng of the war.

On the economy, unemployment is 5%, a very good number and better than the three previous administrations' average.
Many economists now say that we may avoid recession completely, since there has been a slow but sure uptick in growth.

So where do you get your info, cam? The talking points of the Democratic Party? Senator Obama? Ever read a newspaper?

People ignore the good stuff, panick when some idiot tells them there will be a huge recession, and doesn't see the truth. Things aren't great, but in reality (despite the feeling of panick) things are not as bad as you would want me to believe.

The facts are clear. The solution is simple yet not so simple. In the short term, we need to drill here for fuel. In the long term, we have to change our source of fuel from oil to something else that's reliable.

On the first solution, Democrats oppose drilling, because they care more about some fictitious polar bear crisis then they do about stopping the gas price problem. We can do it without hurting the environment for animals. On the second solution, there are many suggestions out there, from ethanol to electric cars to wind or solar power. I think that we just need to take a step back and look at things realistically. Not to panick and play the blame-game. Maybe it takes someone who isn't thrust into the middle to see clearly the whole picture.

[cam]

You poor man. Who are you listening to? You don't feel the effects othe gas price hike, or the change in the price of food?
You don't read the world news--only that sliver that supports your narrow views? You poor sad man.