Actually the project is a parody, a very good one, put together by the Republican National Committee.
Obama has some new friends on Barackbook, including a man frequently blogged about here, Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones. Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, who had to step down from the Obama vice presidential vetting panel, has signed up, as has Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. He's a Barackbook friend of Bill Ayers.
Related posts:
Obama's state legislative record--he got a lot of help
Obama's Bill Ayers problem
Bill Ayers stepping on a US flag in 2001
Obama's Israel problem
Technorati tags:
democrats 
Barack Obama 
Obama 
Politics 
Bill Ayers 
Fannie Mae 
Rashid Khalidi
7 comments:
Have the Republicans come up with a real, comprehensive, long-term energy plan yet, and not just a meaningless slogan and a staged soap opera?
Oops. Too busy playing games on the Internets.
Why is the national Republican Party avoiding our nation's most immediate problems?
Why, yes..it's called "all of the above."
"All of the above"...
- Meaningless slogan? Check.
- Staged soap opera? Check.
- Cracking jokes while ignoring issues? Check.
...Nope. Still no comprehensive, long-term plan that'll actually work, let alone be sustainable.
I've got a great idea for congress Rob...
Let's bug out and go home without discussing the issue.
That'll solve the problem.
Grey, The Dems put forward a bill to force the oil companies to use the 68 million acres they already lease... The GOP killed it.
So just who is it that you think is "bugging out"?
"Force"!
Think about that word Rob. Think about force, and it's connotations.
Force.
How about I force you to do something! Would you like that?
Does the word make you uncomfortable?
Man, it makes me uncomfortable.
But democrats seem mighty comfortable trying to "force" people into certain lifestyles these days, and I'm hopeful they'll pay for it in the upcoming election.
But thanks for admitting they want to "force" the issue...
and remember there are several they are trying to "force"!
Oh jeebus.
Now you're going to play semantic gymnastics?
The oil cos. are already leasing 68 million acres, quite a bit of it with oil 'down there', for $2 and $3 an acre. It's a steal.
The Dem legislation pointed out this fact and "encouraged" (do you like that word better?) oil cos. to drill there first.
Anyhoo... what are the minority-party Republicans trying to do now with their 60s style sit-in? Why, lo and behold, they're trying to "force" the majority of Congress to do what they want.
Or, since you apparently don't like the fact the Republicans want to "force" the majority to do their bidding, in the interest of kinder, gentler bipartisanship what if the Senate compromise goes through and the outer continental shelf is opened up for drilling?
Are Republicans going to "force"... or "encourage"... or maybe just "nudge" oil cos to drill out there so we can see whatever slim and negligible benefits several years from now?
What if the oil cos. don't want to put out the expense of dropping new rigs off-shore (always one of the most expensive endeavours for oil extraction)?
Then what good was opening up those wild areas?
The issue isn't semantics (or underwear, despite your apparent fetish).
The issue is pragmatic, realistic solutions for weaning our country off oil -- foreign or domestic -- see we already know (a) oil is a finite resource and becoming more and more scarce and (b) burning fossil fuels is highly destructive (pollution isn't so good on the lungs y'know).
Post a Comment