Despite the fact that the Secret Service briefed several key business leaders on Fourth Street and at the Convention Center that both Clinton and Obama would be at tomorrow night’s KDP fundraiser, the Obama campaign insists that the senator will be in Oregon instead of in Kentucky. [Telephone Call]
The RPK is mad at the mean and elitist Barack Obama for wanting to tax the unfortunate rich folks of Kentucky! They put out a press release last evening attacking him for hating tax cuts for the rich and for running a television ad in the Bluegrass saying as much. Take a look at the ad. [Obama Ad]
Rather than develop a functioning Federal Election Committee made up of members selected for their personal abilities and qualifications, Mitch McConnell still thinks it’s a good idea to obstruct like crazy. He still wants to force a vote on all nominees– together– because he knows his right-wing hack favorite can’t withstand an individual vote. Of course, McConnell supporters (staffers?) spin this as Democratic obstruction because Democrats want individual votes. So much for Democracy. [CBS/Politico, EITB]
The Clinton campaign is touting Hillary’s “big win” in Indiana (what was it again? a percent? two?) in pushing for a visibility rally at tomorrow’s KDP event in Louisville. Starts at 5:30 at 4th & Market. Will it just be Olivia? Will the demonstrators/protestors be able to understand that it’s mathematically impossible for Clinton to win? [Clinton Campaign]
Did you know? There are Republicans who STILL spin that the economy is all puppies and rainbows. And they blame Al Gore for high gas prices. [KY Progress]
Basically everyone is telling Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race. Mainly because she doesn’t have enough money or time to prove herself. Or, you know, any possible way to get the votes needed to win. Note that Jennifer Moore wants Clinton to stay in the race because Kentucky deserves to vote. Even though those votes won’t matter. (We think she should stay in, too, just so everyone sees that she’s done.) [C-J]
FINALLY! It’s admitted. Steve Beshear and “very important people” in the U.S. Senate recruited Bruce Lunsford. How many months were we preaching that while the establishment told us to piss off, that we were absolutely full of it? Looks like big labor was involved, too. We know several thousand people who won’t be forgetting this when Mitch McConnell walks back into his office next year. [H-L]
27 responses so far ↓
1 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 9:17 am
For the record, the economy has stubbornly failed to stop growing (much less turn into anything like a depression) and Al Gore was talking about making America a better place with $5/gallon gas nearly a decade ago.
2 jake // May 8, 2008 at 9:20 am
Oh, you’re right.
Al Gore is the devil (it has nothing to do with oil men running the country) and the economy is puppies and rainbows (the dollar hasn’t collapsed, housing market is perfect, food prices haven’t doubled, there aren’t shortages or anything).
3 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 9:41 am
Are you saying Al Gore hasn’t advocated higher gas taxes? Are you saying the economy is in a depression or close to one?
4 jake // May 8, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m saying Al Gore isn’t responsible for high gas prices. And you’d have to be completely inept not to realize what Gore was advocating was this: the only thing to shake people from their dependence on oil is higher prices.
I’ll toss aside your spin, as well, because there’s not a soul in this country who doesn’t realize where our economy is/is heading.
And that’s coming from me, a hardcore capitalist pig who loves money more than all else. Probably more than Republicans.
5 Joel // May 8, 2008 at 9:55 am
I love that certain people in this country (ie., most of ‘em) think that America has high gas prices. Go on a vacation in Europe (oh noes, elitists!), rent a car, then marvel at how little gas (measured in liters) your dollar will buy.
Of course, European vacations are out of the picture anyway since the dollar’s so weak…
6 jake // May 8, 2008 at 9:57 am
Considering gas was like $1.80 or whatever a couple years ago, yeah, it’s expensive.
But you’re right. I remember paying US$4/litre for fuel in Germany several years ago.
7 Joel // May 8, 2008 at 9:59 am
Exactly my point, “expensive” is relative. Gas will never be as cheap in America as it is in, say, Kuwait, but it’s still a lot cheaper here than what a lot of the rest of the world pays. If America had never been an oil-producing nation, we would’ve had $4 and $5 gallons of gas years ago.
8 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 9:59 am
I know what Gore was advocating. Just saying you should be happy with that success. Can’t cling to the wrong-headed policy and separate yourself from the consequences at the same time.
And if you really believe the economy is headed for a depression and want to sell any of your assets for thirty cents on the dollar, call me.
9 jake // May 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
Jesus H. The spin.
Yeah, Al Gore either IS responsible or he ISN’T. Which is it? Clearly, anyone who thinks on their own, recognizes that Al Gore didn’t jack fuel prices. Clearly, our current policies aren’t getting us anywhere and haven’t for decades.
It’s 2008. Any economic disaster we experience today isn’t going to be like an economic disaster 70 or 80 years ago. The argument of, “Oh, we can’t be heading toward financial disaster because it’s not like it was in 1935 or whatever” just doesn’t apply. Nothing about the world is the same.
10 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // May 8, 2008 at 10:10 am
The last time I checked, Gore has never been President.
For the past 7 1/2 years, we have largely had _technical_ economic growth, while a large and growing segment of Americans have to 1) work multiple jobs (when one full time job should be the limit for human beings); 2) go without health insurance; 3) declare bankruptcy; 4) lose their homes to foreclosure; 5) see their well-paying jobs slip away to other countries; 6) pay increasingly exorbitant prices for gas and staples. Yes, we had some growth before the current recession (and McCain verified it is a recession), but who did that growth help?
Last, I would prefer America’s well-off pay for our shared infrastructure and government services rather than RED CHINA. Why do Republicans love Communists so much?
11 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 10:16 am
If oil men really were running the country, don’t you think we would be drilling in ANWR?
12 jake // May 8, 2008 at 10:19 am
Jesus Christ. Seriously.
Dubya: Oil.
Cheney: Uh, oil.
Condi: Oil. Hag has an oil tanker NAMED AFTER HER, even.
If the country wasn’t run by oil men we wouldn’t even be having a never-ending discussion about drilling in a protected wildlife habitat.
13 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // May 8, 2008 at 10:25 am
It continues to be hilarious that Bush and the Republicans focus on the six-month supply of oil from a barren, hard-to-reach region while they are politically afraid to push for more off-shore drilling in states they need for the electoral college in the Presidential race. They act like they have solutions for increasing the supply, but in reality, they have no serious ideas and no political cojones.
14 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 10:26 am
That’s my point. If they were really running things we wouldn’t just be talking about drilling. We would be doing it. Instead, we are blowing billions on corn.
15 jake // May 8, 2008 at 10:28 am
The only folks I hear babbling about corn are those like Steve Henry and Steve Beshear.
Even George Bush knows better than to promote corn ethanol or whatever.
16 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // May 8, 2008 at 10:34 am
We can probably all agree that this push for biofuels is becoming beyond ridiculous — it’s causing shortages and higher prices in the food market, while at the same time, corn is a very inefficient resource for producing ethanol.
My theory is that all of this biofuel mess is political strategizing with respect to Iowa, which happens to be the first contest of the Presidential season.
17 3CardNana // May 8, 2008 at 10:53 am
Just would like to point out that oil companies only make 8.5 cents per dollar in profit. That is right at the median of all businesses. The reason their profits go up has nothing to do with gouging and everything to do with the worldwide oil markets increasing demand, most specifically India and China. I know that doesn’t fit into the “oil companies are bad mkay” mantra that most on the left and some on the right are spouting, but it is actually what is happening.
18 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // May 8, 2008 at 11:25 am
3CardNana, you are actually correct on this one point. I do kind of cringe whenever I hear about a candidate vowing to do something about gouging, even as they talk about other viable options for reducing our dependence on oil. I agree that companies deserve a fair profit.
It would be nice to have a government and marketplace that launches a kind of “Manhattan Project” to develop clean alternative energies. Why couldn’t we create huge arrays in solar panels in deserts, for instance? Why couldn’t we harness ocean wave energy?
While I don’t begrudge oil companies from making a fair profit, I do begrudge a political environment that does a lot more to prop up the oil industry at the expense of alternative energies we desperately need to be taking a look at.
19 David Adams // May 8, 2008 at 11:28 am
Jake,
Our nation is presently spending billions in taxpayer dollars subsidizing “corn ethanol or whatever.”
20 Truther // May 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2006. If there needs to be a policy change from Bush’s policy they have had ample time to enact new ones. Truth is that both parties use “liberal” and “conservative” issues and then once elected follow up with neither. In Kentucky particularly, winning elections is about which set of hogs get their turn at the public trough!
21 Another truth teller // May 8, 2008 at 3:53 pm
You are right. Both sides use folks like those of posting on blogs to appeal to us and many other voters and the whole Dem or Rep means nothing as soon as the election is over. For most elected officials (like it or not) it’s about their particular personal interests and/or agenda and ends there!
22 .... // May 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Truthists,
A blatant statement about what dems have accomplished since 1/2006 without even tacit recognition of vetos and filibusters is just flatout insulting the intelligence of anyone with half a brain. If your going to do that just stick to the repub blogs where you are guaranteed that audience.
23 ok // May 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Oh I get it so Dems have been able to block but as far as actually getting something done…hmm?
Republicans have done that before and that is not a long-term tactic that is successful. Voters expect someone with the power to also accomplish something…aka…”we know what you’re against but what are you for?” Let’s face it both sides are guilty of it!
24 Jake // May 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Uh, “ok” – do you know what vetos and filibusters are?
The Democrats don’t have a veto or fillibuster-proof majority.
25 .... // May 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Jake, he/she doesn’t care. The dishonest just keep repeating lies until the ignorant simply assume its true.
26 ok // May 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I get it. The argument is the Dems have been in control of Congress. They haven’t passed anything but they blocked a few things. We need more of them!
27 .... // May 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Democrats passed s-chip rethugs filibustered ON STRICT PARTY LINE VOTES. Multiply that by 100 you get Money Bag Mitch’s LEGACY as minority leader.
Whoever the dem nominee is will wrap the “do nothing congress” around McConnells’ neck and garrote him with it.
Leave a Comment