Donnie McClurkin, a Mexican border wall, Bush's energy bill, no universal health care, war funding

[Stop Cornyn]

without any conditions, "tort reform" against consumers' rights ....

If this is the change Obama is offering, I'm not interested.

[floridablue]

1. Donnie McClurkin ???

He is another of the "Pray the Gay Away" Southern Preachers isn't he/??

[cboy4]

2. Yes, except it's pray away "teh" gay.

Hallelujah.

[floridablue]

10. Thanks for the correction.

[AtomicKitten]

3. This just in: He puts babies on spikes.

[Tejanocrat]

4. How 'bout Obama's flip flop on the death penalty, gun control, the "Patriot" Act, trade with Cuba,

single-payer health care, etc.?

[Stop Cornyn]

5. Here's a link to Obama's vote on the 700 mile Mexican-border wall:

Link to Obama's vote.

[Stop Cornyn]

6. An analysis of Bush's 2005 energy bill which Obama voted for:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a multitude of different energy provisions, from extending daylight savings time to providing tax credits for conservation measures like installing insulation at home or driving a hybrid vehicle. The bill would provide subsidies to encourage the development of alternative fuels, including wind energy, biomass and geothermal power, and more than $28 billion in tax breaks would go to the coal, nuclear, oil, gas and electricity industries. The bill also weakens environmental and public safety protections like the Clean Water Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protected consumers from fraud and abuse by utility companies. Finally, the bill preempts states? authority over the location of natural gas, transmission lines and coastal oil and gas exploration within their borders.


The middle-class position:
The Middle Class Opposes: The most startling thing about this legislation is what it does not do. In the first place, the 1,700-page, multi-billion dollar bill fails to help middle-class consumers squeezed by high gas and fuel costs. The rollback in public safety protections also puts middle-class families at risk, for example, by exempting oil and gas companies from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act when these companies inject carcinogenic chemicals into the ground. At the same time, the deregulation of public utilities exposes the middle class to a different kind of risk stemming from increased consolidation of utilities that could raise electric rates and manipulate energy markets. What the bill does do is provide massive taxpayer subsidies?to the tune of $85.1 billion dollars?for some of the world?s most profitable corporations, so that, among other things, they can drill on public land while paying the public less, ultimately leaving middle-class families to pick up a bigger share of the cost of public services. Finally, although the legislation comes at a time of overwhelming scientific evidence about the dangers of global warming and increased concern about the nation?s dependence on foreign oil, it does very little to address either problem, neglecting to even increase fuel efficiency standards for cars.



from the experts:
“With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers's funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.”

—President George W. Bush (April 20, 2005)



“Congress chose to largely follow the path of a 19th century fossil-fueled past instead of crafting an energy bill for the 21st century that would lead us to a clean energy future. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposed the bill because it fails to reduce our dependence on oil, fails to address global warming, fails to reduce home heating and gasoline prices, fails to significantly increase the deployment of renewable energy and actually increases the threat of nuclear terrorism.”

—Union of Concerned Scientists (November 17, 2005)



“After the energy measure passed, energy lobbyists from all over Washington celebrated over filet mignon and wine at their favorite D.C. steakhouses. Alas, this bill gives hard-working American taxpayers nothing to celebrate: It won't lower prices at the pump won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil … Instead of crafting an innovative energy blueprint for the next generation, lawmakers chose to reward their campaign contributors with huge government handouts at the taxpayer's expense … The nation deserves an energy policy that is not powered by pork. We can do better than this package of government giveaways to mega-rich energy companies.”

—Jill Lancelot, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense (August 24, 2005)

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. ...

[cali]

8. sigh.

that's just as dishonest as if I wrote

co-sponsored the IWR, voted twice for bankruptcy reform, voted twice for Yucca Mt, voted for China trade, voted for NCLB I just can't get behind someone who's deeds have been rooted in such terrible judgment.

And you provide no fucking evidence whatsoever that Obama wants to build a wall on the border, that his healthcare plan is significantly different from the others aside from not including mandates, or that he's against consumer rights.

I hate this dishonest crap.

[Stop Cornyn]

9. There is a guy named Michael Moore who made a whole movie about US health care called "Sicko."

Michael Moore explained the differences between Edwards and Obama on health care:

Barack Obama ... who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it....

And then there's John Edwards... A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. .... Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

In case you missed the point, Michael Moore had some follow up comments:

So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Paul Krugman addressed the same issue in the New York Times:

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."

At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. - a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator - Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register - suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington."

Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries - which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems - will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies - backed by the conservative movement as a whole - will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I'll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I'm sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

[Czolgosz]

11. Obama's appeal (beyond the significant racial progress he represents) is lost on me.