Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* The morning after: By declaring that the one thing he refuses to accept is "inaction," Obama signaled in familiar terms that he is fully committed to securing the most ambitious legislative solution to the broader problem that he's able to attain.

The question that will be answered in the weeks ahead is whether the failure to lay down specific markers and goals -- his bottom line -- makes a less ambitious bill all but inevitable.

No question: It would have been preferable if he'd "gone big" on legislative specifics. But this was a speech about the oil spill. And we've heard this before: Obama was hammered with similar criticism throughout the health care fight, and ultimately all that will matter is the follow-through.

* Kate Sheppard says Obama's failure to clearly call for a carbon cap may all but doom its chances this year.

* E.J. Dionne thinks Obama may be laying the groundwork to accept a less ambitious bill.

* Mike Tomasky ponders the alternate universe known as the U.S. Senate and braces himself for a climate/energy bill that's not even remotely in line with public opinion.

* The contrary view: Paul Begala says we've seen this movie before -- Obama's critics worry he's not engaged or specific enough -- then suddenly he "swoops in to save the day."

* Dems in Congress are skeptical: John Dingell says he was "disappointed" that Obama didn't more clearly spell out consequences for BP.

* Steny Hoyer says the public still "needs additional assurance" that the Federal government is running the show.

* But let's not forget that the speech isn't the last word: Peter Baker notes that Obama will follow through today with a "perp walk" of BP execs into the West Wing. This story is still being written.

* One thing Republicans agree on: Obama is cynically capitalizing on the crisis to force "cap and trade" down the throats of the American people.

* But Republicans are anything but unified when it comes to their own response to the crisis.

* Good read: Katrina Vanden Heuvel on the real role of the left in the Obama era.

* Some Republican Senators are wavering on whether to support Sharron Angle.

* And it turns out Angle was once a Democrat.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  June 16, 2010; 8:46 AM ET
Categories:  Climate change , Health reform , House Dems , Morning Plum , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Oval Office speech open thread
Next: New meme: Spill proves Obama isn't manly enough

Comments

I liked the speech. Also, the Ohio focus group according to Politico is liked it tool.

But what is far more important in this incidence is ACTION.

To be honest I am not sure what cap and trade has to do with getting off foreign oil. Cap and trade has far more to do with coal and electicity than it does with oil. As a result, I suspect that Obama didn't bring up cap and trade because it doesn't have anything to do with the oil spill.

Posted by: maritza1 | June 16, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I liked the speech. Also, the Ohio focus group according to Politico is liked it tool.

But what is far more important in this incidence is ACTION.

To be honest I am not sure what cap and trade has to do with getting off foreign oil. Cap and trade has far more to do with coal and electicity than it does with oil. As a result, I suspect that Obama didn't bring up cap and trade because it doesn't have anything to do with the oil spill.

Posted by: maritza1 | June 16, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

thx maritza -- you have a link to the focus group piece?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 16, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Re-post from prior thread:

I thought the speech was fine on substance. A bit messy in rhetoric but that doesn't really matter. The question is whether the Oval Office address signifies the beginning of some real heavy lifting by the White House. This is a massive subject area, far more complex than health care. There are issues concerning the Gulf Coast economy; climate change; national oil dependence; air pollution; national security, etc. Congress is simply incapable of putting all the pieces together in any coherent structure; Obama must provide the framework and let Congress fill in the blanks. This should begin now. We'll see.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 16, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Greg,
The Ohio focus group information is in Mike Allen's Playbook on Politico.com

Posted by: maritza1 | June 16, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Maritza: One of the key distortions in our energy policy is that we don't make producers account for the all the costs of hydrocarbons: by allowing drilling without adequate regulation and safety procedures, by not including the costs of using hydrocarbons, by subsidizing the oil and gas industries, we pretend that hydrocarbon fuels are far cheaper than they really are. A critical component of a sensible energy policy is to price hydrocarbon fuels correctly. Cap and trade will do that. As would a carbon tax. But it appears that nothing of the sort will get through Congress. That would be fatal to devising a rational energy policy but for one thing: EPA's power to control carbon emissions. Administrative control of air pollution will also help account for the full cost of hydrocarbons (though not as efficiently as the above methods). EPA carbon emissions controls will provide the foundation upon which we can build an informed and sensible energy policy. I hope to see something very soon from the EPA.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 16, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Greg - thanks for the Vanden Heuvel piece, I hadn't seen it and it is very good.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I wasn't able to listen to the speech until this morning, oh and how about those Lakers, missed that too. Down to the wire wbg.

Anyway, after reading some of the comments here and elsewhere, I decided to listen to the speech as if I were a Gulf Coast resident. It's difficult to imagine what they're going through, but as a business owner if our income disappeared tomorrow we'd be in a world of hurt. I actually thought he did a pretty good job addressing their concerns which are in the forefront as long as the oil gushes. I know the moratorium is a sticking point for a lot of people, but I thought he explained the necessity of it while acknowledging that it can't just go on indefinitely because of the economic consequences. And I thought he sounded reassuring in holding BP accountable for their economic devastation and our commitment to make sure they PAY. And I thought he expressed genuine empathy for their plight, a difficult emotion to fake.

As far as future or current energy legislation, I get the feeling he believes in an awful lot more than he thinks he can get out of congress. We'll see how hard he presses with specifics but I'm not expecting miracles at this point. I'd sure like to be pleasantly surprised so I'm holding out for more. Progressive activists and environmentalists need to mobilize NOW if we want to influence our representatives.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 16, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

I'll be at Fenway Thursday for a Red Sox game. Then out to Landsdowne Street for Game 7. Woo-hoo! I just hope the Celtics show up (unlike yesterday).

Gottta run.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 16, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

One comment on the "a President needs to look manly" meme (see Gerson today as a trite example).

The notion that this is what a President ought to be doing or to be concerned with should be attacked at every opportunity. Because it is deeply destructive to our well-being as a society.

It is to accept that the swagger of a Mussolini or a George W Bush is somehow a more proper aspect of good leadership than the calm and directed persistence towards communal improvement of a Ghandi or a ML King or a Lincoln.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 16, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Only thing I hate is Obama's tendency to cave without securing votes. This is how health care got so watered down and no GOP votes and he is repeating this same process. Except he knows he won't get one GOP vote with cap and trade in the bill.

Dems need to accept that cap and trade, if it wasn't lost with Ben Nelsen or Blanche, is definitely gone with Scott Brown election. However, Obama has got to get GOP votes to remove it instead of dumping it hoping to get a GOP vote.

Maybe he should shoot for Immigration??? Looks like the legislative boat lost it's steam this session...

Posted by: soapm | June 16, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Bernie -- thoroughly agree. It's the "Strong Daddy" school of punditry. There's no end to it.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 16, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

It's such shame that Mussolini and Ghandi are our only models for Presidential leadership. (Rolling eyes)

Obama's problem isn't lack of fascist swagger. He's just a lightweight. And people see it. He replay has no leadership gift.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 16, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

FYI- they moved the SOX game to 6 or 6:30 I'm not sure which. Who really watched the speech? When Obama shows up on TV I change it.

Posted by: obrier2 | June 16, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

QB, are you into stage directions?, e.g. "(rolling eyes)"? You hang out here so much your eyes must be permanently rolled up looking into the vacant area that's supposed to house the brain.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 16, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, your comments perfectly summarize my thoughts.

I thought it was an excellent speech.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if we want some form of price on carbon, we NEED to call our congresspeople TODAY and demand it.

Capitol Switchboard (ask to speak to a specific rep/senator):

(202) 224-3121

Searchable directory:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

And if you can, HAND-WRITE A LETTER to have the biggest impact.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 16, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I am going to divide this into two parts in hopes it doesn't get lost to moderation.

Part I:
Like everybody else, I've been thinking about the Gulf Coast oil crisis but also trying not to think about it because it's so unsettling. What it reminds me of most is the ancient Greek notion of aristeia in which the forces of war are unleashed in such a way that there are no longer any bounds. Having huge amounts of oil gushing from the depths of the earth with no clear way to stop it is a pretty terrifying situation. It's also similar to the experience of those of us who lived through Three Mile Island--we had a deep fear we were on the brink of turning Pennsylvania into a nuclear wasteland where nobody could go for thousands of years.

It's hardly a surprise that these sorts of nightmares are attached to our national pursuit of energy. The great industrial expansion of America has always been linked to an intense desire to build and grow that has gone hand and hand with rapaciousness. Our 19th century entrepreneurs weren't known as Robber Barons for nothing. In the 20th and now 21st centuries, big oil has been a primary driving force in our economy. And let's not be naive about this. Most of us aren't Amish. We drive cars; we run our households and businesses on an assumption of having all the energy we want. And we've elected Texas oilmen to the highest offices in the country.

Last night, after the president's speech, David Kurtz at TPM posted an interesting response in which he pointed out that we're not talking about some pristine wilderness in the Gulf but about an area that has supported a massive commercial and industrial enterprise for decades with little attention being paid to the consequences. The schizophrenia of this whole situation is maybe best crystalized in the simultaneous desire of Louisianans to both keep their way of life as shrimpers and fishermen while also keeping the jobs and income that come from the rigs that endanger the aquatic habitat.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 16, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

O.K. Going to three parts since Part II was held.

Part II:
And now, of course, politics has again entered the picture. We have all kinds of moral posturing going on. We have local officials (perhaps with the encouragement of a national party?) using the crisis as a way to hammer the national government and to advance the idea that localities and states are always the wise heads in spite of their own choices that have contributed to the problems, and in spite of their inherent inability to address the tangle of national and global interests that are directly affected by their immediate plight. We have a mainstream press and a blogosphere, both right and left, who smell blood in the water along with the oil. And just as both sides were eager to expose the weaknesses of the bright and gifted president they elected in Bill Clinton, they're eager to go after the newest bright and gifted president for not being the all seeing, all powerful mythological figure they've created in their own image of their all knowing selves.

I've had the sense that President Obama feels out of his comfort zone in this crisis. Everybody can and has speculated on why this may or may not be the case, though I suspect that the very complexity of the interwoven economic issues combined with the facts that the damn hole hasn't been plugged and that criticism is coming from every possible contradictory direction, make the problem seem particularly intractable. Whatever the case, the speech he gave last night seemed to have more forced intensity than real passion as if this president has been pushed into a certain level of play acting when his natural instincts are to dig for the best options in a choice of bad ones and to find an opening to go big in an area where all sorts of things need to be redressed.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 16, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Part III:
But again, we shouldn't be naive about this. If healthcare was hard, we haven't seen anything yet if the president really means to take on big oil and its tenacles that reach into every part of our economy and national life. Yet in what seemed like a rather thin speech, there was a theme suggested that may give us some sense of a better outcome--that old idea that Americans rise to challenges, that we're innovators and risktakers, and not all with the self serving shortsightedness of American BP. In the end, this crisis has not been the result of criminal insanity, though there may be some of that. It's the result, above all, of a failure of imagination. We've not thought outside the oil box. We've not even begun to imagine the worst that could happen and put commensurate safeguards in place. We have moved ahead with a blithe confidence in American know how and the belief we can parachute in at the last minute to solve any problem.

The fact is this is on all of us. And it's just possible that one place to start is with examining our national mania for scapegoating the president when any problem isn't erased immediately. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I do my best work when I don't have people screaming at me and throwing brickbats and having tantrums in the background and telling me what a failure I am.

I really keep wondering this: why keep beating the guy down? Isn't it time for the liberals and progressives among us to get his back for a change?

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 16, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I missed the speech and listened to it after hearing all the criticism from Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Matthews. I thought the speech was much better than they gave him credit for, although it was short on specifics as to what to do next.

I think the speech was aimed at ordinary Americans and especially Gulf Coasters and those who sympathizze with them, not at DC villagers. Yes, he didn't tell the Senate specifically to pass cap'n trade, but he did tell the People that they have to recognize that the era of cheap oil is over and that we can't just keep trying to get more in more and more hazardous ways. We have to transition and that will be difficult. But this is a very important step--it's the first time since Carter that a US Pres has really said we are up against limits, especially with oil.

The biggest shortcoming is not failing to get into the inside baseball of which measures the Senate should pass, it was not making the case that unregulated capitalism and trusting big corporations is the root cause of virtually all the problems we face, and we need more serious regulation both to protect the environment (in the case of energy production) but also to establish fair rules of the road (fin reg). Unfettered markets are a disaster and we need more pulling together for the common good and less competition to take whatever we can. "I trusted them and they were wrong. Now we need to put them under more control since they obviously can't and won't police themselves. This isn't socialism, it is government in the public interest."

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 16, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

QB1:
"Obama's problem isn't lack of fascist swagger. He's just a lightweight. And people see it. He replay has no leadership gift."

Ah-yup.

And to be quite honest about it, he doesn't even lie very well.

It doesn't anger me that I get lied to, I expect it.
But what REALLY pisses me off is when the liar doesn't bother to lie WELL.
A carefully crafted lie can be a thing of beauty and appreciated as the work of art that it is.

Another lame falsehood that the Alleged Hawaiian told us last night is how he knows the moratorium is "going to be hard on the people working on the rigs".

Actually it's going to be hard on everybody in South Louisiana and coastal Texas. The Oil Patch has a very big and very wide footprint, and if you hink the moratorium only hurts rig-rat roughnecks, then you're the kind of idiot voter that the President counts on.


Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

ABC - All 3 parts are excellent. A very good analysis.

Greg, how about replacing the completely useless 'report abuse' button with a 'rec' button ?

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The Katrina Vanden Heuvel piece is spot on. It's not surprising that the traditional media seems unable to grasp what is happening on the left. They never do. It's tough when a majority of the press see the world through a Republican frame.

The shame is that most progressives don't realize that Obama isn't the enemy. He needs HELP from progressives, not unrelenting attacks. There's always room for CONSTRUCTIVE critism, because we finally have a President that might actual be constructive. There was no point with Bush...since he never cared what the public thought.

But too many on the left are still stuck in an anti-Bush mentality. They think attacking Obama the way they attacked Bush will help, because it helped acheive their goals in the past. They need to learn that agitating while in power requires a different method than when out of power.

Here's hoping that Heuvel's article is a start to that revelation. If progressives stopped bickering and got out of crisis/chicken little mode...they could help shape Obama's Presidency for the better.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 16, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Moonbatz:
"But this is a very important step--it's the first time since Carter that a US Pres has really said we are up against limits, especially with oil."

I'm pretty sure that that waasn't exactly the goal he was aiming for, but it'll do for MY purposes.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I find it interesting that so many of those who practically demanded that Obama give a oval office address, or some other primetime address to the people of the Gulf (i.e. Olbermann, Maddow, Tweety, KOS, etc) are all now saying that it woulda been betta if there was no speech at all! FTW!!

It's things like that they make you realize that no matter what the Prez woulda said last night people who are already PO'd about the gov't response were gonna be disappointed.

Also, anyone else already tired of Olbermann and Tweety's "countdown" of the days since the spill, as if the spill response somehow compares to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

I'm kinda sick of the lot of them

BTW, I spoke to my fam too, and they actually thought the speech was fine. They just wanted to hear that the Prez was aware of the Gulf coast resident's worry, and contrary to Rachel Maddow's panning of the "prayer and blessings" portion of the speech, my aunt really appreciated that part. It's what she made a point of agreeing with.

Posted by: lynell33 | June 16, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

One commentary that I didn't hear from anyone was the spiritual turn this address took at the end. In fact the last five paragraphs touched on the spiritual.

"It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region's fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It's called "The Blessing of the Fleet," and today it's a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea - some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago - at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, "The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always," a blessing that's granted "...even in the midst of the storm."

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through - what has always seen us through - is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America."

This part of the speech directly to the people suffering telling them to be strong and embrace their faith in tough times to help them get through this.

Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf region is a very spiritual region. I'm sure the end of this address was accepted very well.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 16, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

ABC - Could you post the link to that David Kurtz TPM piece ? Thanks.

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Well you know, I take that back. Fox n Friends took Obama's prayer and turned it into an attack on his faith.

Not surprised coming from a bunch of miscreants.


Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 16, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

@amkeew

"...how about replacing the completely useless 'report abuse' button with a 'rec' button?"

I get the feeling Greg lost control over things like that when he moved under the WaPo umbrella. It's their standard layout for blogs.

It's freaking terrible (pointless 'report abuse' button, ugly styling), restrictively thin (no options for higher resolutions), and slow (lame)...but it's their standard.

It's the trade off for Greg getting a bigger audiance and more "clout" in the industry. I'll take it, since I know he's better than most at this work. But I did like the old site's interactive aspects better.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 16, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Thanks ABC, Mimi, and lynell. Good, thoughtful posts.

The thread here is that it was a useful speech without doing anything risky or radical. It's also rightly pointed out that this speech was about connecting the gov't to the efforts to get this under control. But of course we have to remember that it is NOT under control; so there is no way Obama could get his sleeves rolled up too far. The WH just can't stop the spill, so it's not yet time to push BP out of the way.

This is still, from the WH's perspective, very precarious. More to come this week I'd say.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 16, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Link to the David Kurtz piece that ABC mentions:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/i_grew_up_on_the.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 16, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Great map from TPM showing natural gas pipelines. Like most maps, it's very cool:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/the_fossil_fuel_reality.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 16, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I agree ABC's post was excellent. I would add an observation this morning after reading many comments from Pundits everywhere. It seems everyone had certain expectations going in that were not met, he wasn't emotional enough, it was short on details, not a strong enough push for climate change legislation, how is he going to force BP to pay, etc. etc. And yet in the very next breath they contradict their own criticism by saying well, maybe we don't want an over-emotional guy at the helm, the details may unfold day to day, he did show a dedication to climate change legislation but perhaps it's congress who doesn't have the will, he's meeting with BP today so maybe there is a plan. In the meantime, in a 20 minute time span he addressed all of their concerns, just not in the way they or we wanted.

We elected someone with a style that is the antithesis of a "cowboy" and then expect him to be one. Not very smart on our part. If we want more aggressive legislation, we're the ones who need to fight for it, he can't, and maybe won't, do it on his own. Perhaps the best he can do in the climate of politics today is get what he can and give us the beginning of change.

He also made an appeal to the American Spirit which has been sorely lacking of late, we've drawn lines which we seem unable to cross, and we're cynical. Normally, during a crisis we all pull together, seems like a good time right now.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 16, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

This one's for Bernie: My take on the emerging meme that the spill proves Obama isn't manly enough:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/new_media_meme_spill_proves_ob.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 16, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Thanks suekzoo1.

BBQ - I'm with you about the old site. This is proof enough that anything msm touches, it gets worse ? :)

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Sue, thanks for posting the link amk wanted.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 16, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

ABC, with your permission, I'm stealing your excellent post to post it @dkos here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/16/876392/-Dear-Rachel-Maddow

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

MoonbatinCHI:
"The thread here is that it was a useful speech..."

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to convince someone else, or just yourself?

That the speech was "useful" may be what the Sweat Lodge Hive-mind has been TOLD to think, but that surprises absolutely no-one, since the Moonbat Manor here is so partisan that they'd support the Alleged Hawaiian no matter WHAT he had said.

Slave Sargent yesterday posted a whole Chinese Menu of what Obama SHOULD have said before the fact.
How much of it did The One actually say?

And can you discern any measurable slackening of support for the Odministration from him today?

Nope.

I'll tell you one thing that the Alleged Hawaiian did NOT say that is going to damage him very badly.
He was johnny-on-the-spot about criminal probe for BeePee executives and managers, (rightfully so), but he said nothing about throwing corrupt MMS bureaucrats into the hoosegow along with the "BeePeople".

That apparent "two-tier justice system" is going to hurt Obama badly...and he's already vulnerable in that area, what with the hapless Eric Holder's "New Black Panther Party" thug-coddling Justice Department.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Amk,if you want to.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Mayonnaise Moonbat mike from Aryanton:
"This part of the speech directly to the people suffering telling them to be strong and embrace their faith in tough times to help them get through this."

Like they needed this boob and his hateful religious background to tell them THAT.

"Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf region is a very spiritual region."

You would know this, how? You don't even know Manassas or Warrenton, and you're going to opine authoritatively about LaFourche and Plaquemines Parishes?

"I'm sure the end of this address was accepted very well."

Let's see how well it;s accepted three months into his moratorium...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 16, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

ABC - You might be interested to know how it went over there . :)

Posted by: amkeew | June 16, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade will all but kil the rest of the Economy and manufacturing that is left in the USA!

Barry Soetoro aka; Barak Obama the foreign visitor, Presidentof the USA, who ia a citizen of Indonesia, by bringing his Bills into operation will be known as the President who killed America!

He has gone to great lengths to ruin America, there was even some black mail going on in the senate as this news article reports!

Re:http://www.prisonplanet.com/carbon-tax-bill-may-be-dead-after-shock-graham-reversal-on-climate-change.html

Graham withdrew his support for both the Democrat’s pro-amnesty immigration bill and cap and trade legislation just a week after ALIPAC Chairman Gheen gave a speech in which he demanded that Graham come clean on the fact that he was being blackmailed over his homosexuality.

Graham’s support for legislation that was highly unpopular amongst his own constituents strongly suggested that he was being strong-armed into toeing the line on policies being pushed by the Washington establishment.

Now that Gheen’s allegations are out in the open, Graham may feel that the heat is off and he can abandon his endorsement of unpopular legislation and concentrate on trying to keep his Senate seat.

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | June 16, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company