WAKE UP AMERICA: OBAMA OPPOSED HILLARY GAS TAX RELIEF PLAN IN MAY, NOW OBAMA IS PROPOSING $1000 GAS TAX RELIEF
It seems Americans have short memory. It was not that long ago, in May 2008 campaigning in Indianapolis, Obama said Clinton’s support for a summertime break from the federal gasoline tax symbolizes a candidacy consisting of “phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.”
Clinton campaigned in North Carolina, where surveys show her cutting into Obama’s once sizable lead due to increased support from white working-class voters. Later, she was to return to Indiana for a final push with polls pointing toward a particularly close finish in Tuesday’s primary.
Read more from USAToday
It is now August, Obama now proposes $1,000 emergency Gas rebate checks. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to Republican rival John McCain’s call for more offshore drilling in coastal states like Florida.
The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.
Read more at SFGate
Now the issue is not about Obama being a flip flopper, Obama is a calculating person with selfish ambition willing to do and say anything to become president. Obama knows that Americans have short memory.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Obviously Obama can’t be right both times. I guess he was able to see the mote that was in Mrs. Clinton’s eye, but did not consider the beam that is in his own eye.
If you can’t tell the simple and huge difference between the McCain/Clinton gas tax vacation gimmick (=giving money to oil companies) and what Obama is proposing (=taking money away from oil companies and giving it to consumers), then maybe you should re-study all this until you understand it.
How do we get the mainsteam Media like the biase CNN & MSNBC to cover his flip flops. WE ALL know well, he shouldnt be here, Hillary wont the popular vote and in 18 million supporters minds also won the nomination, DNC stole the votes and gave the them to Obama, who also opposed counting all FL & MI votes, now he is asking they be counted!!!!
Hey CHANGE,
Do you actually think Obama proposoal (=taking money away from oil companies and giving it to consumers) will work? I think you are the one that doesn’t understand. The oil companies will just pass that Windfall Profit Tax right back on the consumer. The Gov’t takes it, but the Oil compnay will pass it on to you….you bozo.
Re: Change
Both policies are wrong in encouraging same or higher levels of gas consumption. Obama and some economists opposed Clinton-McCain gas tax vacation on this ground. There is a clear difference between saving some Americans a few dollars and giving them $1,000 a taxpayer. It is unlikely that Americans would have used the gas tax rebate or will use the $1,000 gas tax rebate to invest in alternative fuel projects, some of which could be financed from the money taken or to be taken from oil companies. Robin Hood was not running a modern economy.
BA
I kept wondering today why I hear only good words about Obama’s gas scheme with no one in media remembering how he bashed Hillary on the same idea just a few weeks ago.
Can anyone provide an explanation?
Confused in Los Angeles.
Please watch this video on You Tube… It tells and exposes more about this election, no matter who you want to win..
Look and Listen Closely….and pass it on to all on your e-mail list..
I don’t know how everyone is voting but this is worth
the time to listen to what this man says..
This is serious, serious, business…….
Better listen…
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html
God Bless you
Could Senator Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination at the
last minute by taking advantage of buyer’s remorse among Democratic
super-delegates who are dismayed by the performance of Senator Obama’s
campaign so far?
Here’s the scenario: Senator Obama has raised tens of millions more
dollars than Senator McCain, which Democrats think should translate into
an advantage in the polls. The economy is doing poorly, which Democrats
think should translate into an advantage in the polls given that the
Republicans control the White House and the incumbent party is often
blamed for a bad economy.
The Republican nominee-in-waiting, Senator McCain, is old and is
unpopular with his party’s base because he has broken with conservatives
on taxes, global warming, torture, and campaign speech limitations. The
Democrats think that should translate into an advantage for them at the
polls, too, even though their presumptive nominee is several kiloparsecs
to the left of Mr. McCain.
The Republican incumbent in the White House, President Bush, is
personally unpopular, blamed for the Iraq War (as Robert L. Bartley
liked to say: “They’ll forgive you for being wrong. What they won’t
forgive you for is being right”). Three of the top 15 books on the New
York Times bestseller list are Bush-bashing tomes; one advocates that he
be prosecuted for murder. The Democrats think that this, too, should
translate into an advantage for them at the polls.
Despite all these factors, Mr. McCain is running roughly even in the
polls with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, a time when he
is supposed to be way ahead. In early August of 1988, Governor Dukakis
was ahead of Vice President Bush by a wide margin. In early August of
2004, Senator Kerry was ahead of President Bush. If Mr. Obama doesn’t
have a big lead now, it could get pretty ugly for the Democrats as
November approaches, the theory goes.
It will only get worse when Messrs. McCain and Obama face off in
presidential debates. The public will discover that Mr. Obama,
notwithstanding his reputation as a silver-tongued orator, is not that
good a debater - which explains why he did his best to dodge debate
invitations from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. Feature Mr. Obama’s
flubbering on the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia.
Is all this enough to prompt Democratic super-delegates to re-think
their allegiance to Mr. Obama and hand the nomination to Senator
Clinton? If you count Michigan, Mrs. Clinton won the reported popular
vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, 17.8 million to 17.5
million, and won many of the hotly contested big battleground states
that the Democrats need to win in November - Pennsylvania, Ohio,
California, New York, New Jersey, Florida. She won Massachusetts even
after Senators Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Mr. Obama.
Take away the delegates Mr. Obama has by virtue of the endorsement of
Senator Edwards, who has newly admitted deceiving the electorate about
the adultery he committed while his wife lay stricken with cancer, and
the delegate gap is even narrower. Even Mr. Obama doesn’t have enough
delegates to win the nomination without the super-delegates, so there
wouldn’t be anything terribly exceptional about the super-delegates
putting her rather than him over the top.
Probably all this isn’t enough - at least not yet. But what if, by the
time the convention rolls around, Mr. Obama isn’t just running neck and
neck with Mr. McCain but is lagging by, say, five percentage points, or
if Mr. Obama makes a big blunder with his choice of a running mate, or
some other campaign stumble? Then expect the whispers already swirling
among Clinton supporters to turn into a full-fledged roar.
Mrs. Clinton’s Tuesday keynote address, scheduled for the Tuesday of the
Convention, could then start to sound less like an endorsement speech
and more like a final campaign plea. If it’s a real hit, anything can
happen. Expect, too, the well-timed release of some public poll showing
Mrs. Clinton doing better than Mr. Obama in matchups against Mr. McCain
in battleground states. Already the Clinton campaign is surfacing,
through the forthcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly, a memo portraying
Mr. Obama as “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking
and in his values.”
***
This newspaper doesn’t presume to tell the Democrats whom to nominate,
but we did start out this campaign hoping for three New York
presidential candidates. Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg are out of the
race for the top spot on any ticket, though Mr. Bloomberg may still
prove attractive as a vice presidential candidate. We have no illusions
about the ultra-long-shot of Mrs. Clinton’s chances of actually emerging
as the Democratic nominee, but they are not technically impossible, as
Mr. Obama is no doubt aware. Mr. Obama skipped a visit to a military
hospital in Germany. He spent this weekend on vacation in Hawaii. Mrs.
Clinton spent last week visiting wounded service members at Fort Drum.
Mr. Obama may think the primary campaign is over, but Mrs. Clinton’s
die-hard supporters still itch for a last-minute surprise.
Obama and the Born-Alive Act [Yuval Levin]
Six years ago, Congress passed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,”
making it illegal to kill a child who is fully born during an attempted
abortion. The bill passed without a single opposing vote in either
house, and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. When
he was a state senator at that same time, Barack Obama opposed a state
version of the bill in Illinois. His explanation for the vote since then
has been that the state version did not include a so-called “neutrality
clause” which says explicitly that the bill is not meant to influence
the legal standing of a fetus before birth one way or another. The
federal law contained such a clause, and the state law, Obama has long
insisted, did not. As recently as June 30, the Obama campaign made that
case to answer the charge (in that case from Bill Bennett) that Obama
had opposed the Born-Alive Act.
But now, the National Right to Life Committee has uncovered proof that
Obama in fact voted in committee against even the version of the
Illinois Born-Alive Act that did include exactly the same “neutrality
clause” as the federal bill. On March 12, 2003, when the bill was being
debated, an amendment was added that inserted the neutrality language of
the federal bill verbatim into the Illinois bill. Obama voted for the
amendment (that’s the vote on the left-hand column on this committee
vote record), and then voted against the amended bill (that’s the vote
on the right on the same document). All the Democrats on the committee
(which Obama chaired) followed his lead, and the bill was defeated.
This was, again, legislation that in the same form had by then passed
unanimously at the federal level. Even NARAL did not oppose it.
Apparently Barack Obama did, and his old explanation for doing so seems
at odds with the facts.
Look and Listen Closely….and pass it on to all on your e-mail list..
I don’t know how everyone is voting but this is worth
the time to listen to what this man says..
This is serious, serious, business…….
Better listen…
I am very concerned about the true character and grit of our democratic nominee. It is obvious that he can not get the full support of Clinton’s supporters, yet he does not want her to be the choice for vice president. Clinton supports are loyal to the Clinton’s and loyalty is not a transferable quality. The democratic party would be wise to put them both on the same ticket if they want to win. I am a minority female and I still think Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate for the party. We have allowed the liberal media and gender bias to dim our vision again. It is time for Americans to look beyond the color of the skin and the gender of human beings and look at their leadership qualities. Women have always been the leaders in morden societies even though many still think they should be seen but not heard. If our party want a leader in the Whitehouse they need to get Hillary on the ticket. Even is our present nominee wins the election, he will still be a follower like our present President and we will never get out of the mess we are in with internationa trade, wars and the economy.
Its a great post and useful also because today everybody want to buy shopping goods online.
Thanks for such an helpful post.
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.