Why the Democrats Keep Turning Me Off

© David Burton 2008

     I am unabashedly a conservative with regard to national defense, a minimalist form of government, and economic policies. I therefore tend to favor Republican positions on many if not most issues. BUT, I repeatedly look for Democratic positions (and candidates) that are, at least, somewhat in line with my views. With little exception, my hopes are dashed. I can agree with the Democratic position on abortion and with a Democratic politician (former) such as Senator Joe Liberman of Connecticut, but after that, the Democrats keep turning me off. Let’s look at the major issues facing America today and the positions taken by the leaders of the Democratic party.

     One of the top priority issues facing America today is the high cost of energy. Several of my previous articles have expounded my views on the issue and presented some of the steps that I believe can be a part of the solution to the problem that faces us. Let’s consider for a moment, the Democratic actions and suggestions for attacking the problem.

     “Painfully high vehicle- and jet-fuel prices are propelling popular demands for extracting the estimated 18 billion barrels of petroleum that rest beneath America’s coastal waters.
     “After rescinding previous executive-branch objections, President Bush said July 14, ‘The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.’ “(Ref. 1)

     Since this step toward energy independence was proposed by a Republican president, nearly all Democrats are opposed. They can find all sorts of reasons to pooh-pooh the proposal while continuing to take no positive steps or offer meaningful alternatives.

     “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in July 19’s Houston Chronicle” that, offshore drilling, ‘still leads to oil spills due to failed equipment, aberrant weather or human error on a frequent basis.’ “
     “Feinstein is correct. U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It’s only 99.999 percent clean.” According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), “Since 1980, 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of U.S. oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate.”
     “Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America’s ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998.”
     "It should be noted that 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September 2005 without serious spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were destroyed or damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed.”
     “ ‘You wouldn’t see any full production out of any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030,’ presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama claimed June 20 in Jacksonville, Fla. He added: ‘it will take a generation to reach full production.’ "
     What the Democrats fail to acknowledge is that, “Currently mired in red tape, Chevron’s Destin Dome field off Florida could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to 10 years. Besides, as Confucius said: ‘The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now.’ "
     “The United State should rely on our own offshore oil and gas. The fact we can do so more safely than ever leaves the Democratic Congress no excuse not to stand aside - now!” (Ref. 1)

     Obama (and other Democrats) continue to make meaningless and even harmful bids to buy November election votes by continuing to find someone (other then themselves and we, the American people) to blame for the energy crisis and to offer instant fixes to the problem. They blame the "obscene profits" of big oil; they place the blame on "those speculators"; and then they propose to take oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve and sell it to the American consumer at reduced prices. Apparently, they don't understand the words "strategic" and "reserve". At best, taking oil from the strategic reserves would reduce the price of fuel for a very short duration. At worst, it would encourage more fuel consumption, deplete the reserves and cause a potential disaster in case of a national petroleum emergency, such as an Arab fuel embargo, like that of the 1970's.

     Isn't it interesting that since President Bush announced that he would lift the Presidential ban on off-shore oil exploration and ANWR oil drilling and since he has halted adding to the strategic oil reserves, that the price of crude oil has dropped from around $150 per barrel to less than $120 per barrel, the price of a gallon of gas has dropped from over $4.00 to around $3.60 and the cost of heating oil has declined more than 10% from $4.71/gallon to less than $4.40/gallon (Ref. 2). It's amazing what the fear of a loss in income can do to encourage the OPEC countries to reduce their prices. Capitalism and the free market once again demonstrate what supply, demand and competition can accomplish!

     ”Barack Obama has now officially opted for the quick fix and playing the class warfare game. How very disappointing.” “Yesterday the Democratic presidential contender proposed tapping the nation’s strategic oil reserves in an effort to drive down gasoline prices.” In case Senator Obama had not noticed, fuel prices have begun to drop as noted above and the reserves, “have not been added to since June - President Bush’s concession to rising oil prices.”
     ”The other plank of this [Senator Obama’s] rickety energy platform is a windfall profits tax on those wicked, nasty, evil oil companies. The $12 billion profit made by Exxon in the last quarter has set of the usual round of howling from the usual suspects.” “Exxon, of course, makes an easy target and ‘windfall’ is one of those undefined terms but presumably Obama will know it when he sees it.”
     Of course what Senator Obama and the other liberal Democrats fail to mention is the fact that, “from 2003 to 2007 Exxon made $19 Billion in after-tax profits - after tax being the operative phrase because the company also paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes.”
     “And those wicked, nasty, evil oil companies are also among the largest investors in alternative energy research and development”. (Ref. 3)

     “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, shut down the chamber [the House of Representatives] and sent the House home for a five-week August recess Friday rather than have a vote on expanded drilling.” (Ref. 4.) Thank you Nancy Pelosi for putting the Democratic controlled House of Representatives into recess so you wouldn't have to vote on rescinding the Congressional ban of off-shore oil and gas exploration and drilling in ANWR! Thanks for not taking one positive step on the path to energy independence and instead for giving us finger-pointing congressional baiting of oil company executives that does exactly nothing to eliminate the problem, but does give Democratic congressmen face-time on national TV. While failing to act in any meaningful capacity on the problem of increased fuel prices, the Democratics in Congress simply continue to whine and point fingers. U.S. Representative Edward Markey (D.-MA), “chairman of the House’s select committee on energy independence and global warming said oil companies are racking up huge profits while spending only a ‘pittance’ on research into renewable fuels and finding other new energy sources. ‘Exxon’s profits are excessive, Shell’s profits leave us shellshocked. And BP now stands for Bloated Profits’ “ Markey whined. “ ‘It’s the most selfish group of companies that I’ve seen and the most hypocritical.’ joined in Democratic Senator Charles Schummer (D-NY), at a press conference with Robert Mendenez (D-NJ) and Democratic Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) and Markey. (Ref. 5)

     “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [Democrat] opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] and on the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS]. She won’t even allow it to come to a vote.” . . . "she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote.” The Democratic House leader is more interested in protecting her Democratic House colleagues than in the welfare of the American people that she and her colleagues are supposed to represent. Rather than taking a single positive step toward making America independent of, or at the least less dependent upon foreign sources of oil and gas, she’d rather suck billions of dollars out of the pockets of American consumers and taxpayers and send that money to anti-American countries such as Iran and Venezuela or to other regimes that are corrupt, totalitarian and have questionable allegiances to America and to its democratic ideals. “Democrats want no oil from the American OCS or ANWR. But of course they do want more oil. From OPEC.” What the Democrats want to do is, “to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain.” (Ref. 6)

     Finally, in a meaningless gesture to deflect public anger away from the Democratic opposition to offshore exploration and ANWR drilling , “Speaker Nancy Pellosi said yesterday that the House would consider expanded offshore drilling as part of broad energy legislation when Congress returns next month.” (Ref. 7.)

     “The decision came after growing anxiety among Democrats that Republicans were scoring politically with their call for a vote on offshore drilling.” (Ref. 7) Again, the Democrats are acting proactively only because of political concerns rather than on the basis of the public good and public need.

     “While Pelosi is relenting despite her longtime opposition to drilling off the coast of California, her home state, Republicans may not get the vote they wanted. Expanded coastal drilling would be just one element of a broader bill that would also contain provisions opposed by Republicans, including a requirement that utilities produce a certain amount of electricity through renewable fuels.” Perhaps more significantly, "Democrats would also impose rules denying Republicans a chance to offer changes to the measure.” (Ref. 7) This is a great example of Democracy in action - YOU EITHER DO IT MY WAY OR NOT ALL! So much for meaningful discourse and compromise and the public be dammed in the process.

     “Pelosi . . . said other elements of the Democratic measure would include a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower gas prices quickly [As noted earlier, such a move is meaningless in the long term, simply panders to voters in the short term before the November elections, encourages excess fuel consumption and reduces America’s strategic petroleum reserves that might be needed in a national emergency.] and a proposal to cut down on speculation in energy futures.” [The Democrats need to find one or more scapegoats to explain the energy crisis and hide the fact that Congress has, at best, taken no meaningful actions to head off or alleviate the rise in energy prices, and at worst has taken or proposed actions that, in the long term, will make the energy crisis more severe that it is now.] As noted by Republican representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, “If Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues were truly serious about increasing production of American energy and lowering the price of gasoline”, they wouldn’t have taken, “a five-week break away from Washington” and instead would have worked with their Republican colleagues on coming up with a meaningful and realistic solution to the problem. Boehner rightly called the Democratic proposal “another flawed plan that will do little to lower gas prices.” (Ref. 7)

     In 2006, the Democrats gained control of Congress. What have they managed to accomplish in the past two years? By my account, they’ve done less than nothing! “The current Congress has enacted less legislation than any within the last decade, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS). The 110th Congress has passed just 260 laws - and 74 of those were renaming post offices. But they have passed hundreds of resolutions, including one to recognize soil as an ‘essential resource’ and another to congratulate the UC-Irvine volleyball team.” (Ref. 8)

     During the Arab oil embargo of the 1970's Congress passed legislation fixing the nation-wide speed limit at 55 MPH in order to conserve gasoline. The current do-nothing Democratic Congress could not find the time or the will to take even that small step to begin to correct the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil. It was far more important to look into the question of whether or not Roger Clemens had used steroids some 10 years previous.

     In my most Democratic and most liberal state of Massachusetts, the Democratic Governor and overwhelmingly Democratic legislature this year have enacted several feel-good environmental friendly bills that include a Global Warming Bill that, “requires the state to reduce greenhouse emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels over the next dozen years”; a Green Jobs Bill that funnels, “$13 million a year over the next five years to develop the renewable energy sector”; and a Green Communities Bill that, “requires utilities and other electricity suppliers to procure an increasing percentage of their energy from renewable sources.” The goal is admirable - the consequences are likely to be much less so. “Some business groups said the added regulations included in the environmental bills would drive up the costs and could discourage economic growth at a time when the state needs jobs and increased revenues.” (Ref. 9)

     Even some Democrats have become alarmed at the potentially harmful effects of the liberal policies being put into effect in Massachusetts. “Attorney General Martha Coakley is asking the Department of Public Utilities to ‘reconsider and clarify’ its approval of the so-called ‘decoupling’ plan which would promote conservation because it would allow utilities to ‘needlessly raise rates.” (Ref. 10)

     With election time fast approaching, and the Democratic nomination wrapped up, we now see Senator Obama wavering, backtracking and shifting position on a number of issues.

     While Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have been refusing to consider offshore oil exploration and new oil drilling in Alaska because it's an idea presented by President Bush, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama reversed his previous position and now is in favor of offshore oil exploration and drilling for oil in Alaska if it is part of a comprehensive energy policy. “Senator Obama said yesterday that a shift in his stance on offshore oil drilling is a necessary compromise with Republicans to gain their support for his broader goals of energy independence.” (Ref. 4) Amazing what currying favor with the electorate can do to in an election year! Obama's acceptance of the proposal "only if it is part of a comprehensive energy policy" is a blatantly face-saving gesture to cover his reversal of position and to pander to main-stream America. No one, Bush, McCain or anybody else ever insinuated that off-shore exploration or drilling in ANWR was THE solution to the energy crisis.

     In another, “reversal of his position on one of the most hotly contested issues during the Democratic primary, Barack Obama said he [now] wants convention delegates from Florida and Michigan to have full voting rights at the party’s national convention.” Of course the fact that, “both states are expected to be hotly contested in the November election” has nothing to do with Obama’s change of mind. Whatever it takes to win! (Ref. 11)

     Perhaps we should have foreseen that, when the going got tough Senator Obama would begin to exhibit some ’flexibility’ in his positions. For instance, “in May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, ‘I think that’s a great idea.’” Ah, but that was then. “Barack Obama yesterday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances before the political conventions, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.” (Ref. 12)

     The first reversal in position by Barack Obama (or was it more a case of pandering to the audience of the day) occurred when he took the speaking platform before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and declared that if he were elected president “Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”
     But on the very next day, Obama retracted his remarks, with the excuse that he ‘meant’ that Jerusalem should not be divided by a physical barrier, stating, "we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war. ... I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties."
     Mr. Obama's new endorsement of the Clinton plan as the "starting point" for negotiations involves much more than a problem in phrasing. He has converted his commitment at AIPAC for an "undivided" Jerusalem into support for the city's redivision.
     “There are at least three reasons why one can conclude that Mr. Obama's turn-around on his position on an ‘undivided’ Jerusalem did not result from ‘poor phrasing’ or careless ‘syntax’ or confusion about a ‘code word.’ First, the unambiguous commitment in his AIPAC speech — ‘Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided’ — came at the end of a paragraph beginning ‘Let me be clear.’ The speech was an important address to a crucial group, intended to convey solidarity on an issue of central concern to the group — which undoubtedly accounted for the thunderous standing ovation it received. It was neither an off-the-cuff remark nor a minor part of the speech.
     “Second, it was not the first time he said it. In January, the American Jewish Committee distributed to all presidential candidates an Election Questionaire and posted the responses on its Web site, without editing them. One of the questions was ‘How do you see the likely final status of Jerusalem?’ Mr. Obama's answer was ‘Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided.’ The answer was as unambiguous as the one he gave to 7,000 people at AIPAC five months later.
     “Third, he addressed the issue in 2000 in a position paper on Israel as part of his unsuccessful congressional campaign that year. In that paper, he stated, ‘Jerusalem should remain united and should be recognized as Israel's capital.’
     “When he appeared before AIPAC in June and said ‘Let me be clear ... [Jerusalem] must remain undivided,’ Mr. Obama was expressing a view he had formally taken, in writing, on at least two prior occasions, over an eight-year period.
     “His 2000 position paper is particularly important, because the status of Jerusalem was very much an issue around that time. In March 1999, the Israeli Foreign Ministry posted a lengthy position paper on ‘The Status of Jerusalem.’ The paper recounted the Jewish claim to Jerusalem extending through 3,000 years of history, noted the city historically had been united prior to the Arab attack in 1948, that the city was reunited in 1967 after another unprovoked Arab attack during the Six-Day War, and that Israel had protected the rights and freedoms of all faiths in the city ever since then. The paper concluded there was a ‘national consensus’ on Israel's sovereignty of a united city.
     “Mr. Obama's Sunday interview raises questions about his candor, because his explanation of ‘poor phrasing’ and careless ‘syntax’ seems — at the very least — misleading, given his consistent prior articulations of his position and the definition of ‘united.’
     “But his comments raise an even more important issue. The Clinton Parameters were in fact a partition plan, a last-gasp attempt in December 2000 to bridge the Israeli and Palestinian positions in the final month of the Clinton presidency. President Clinton informed the parties that the parameters were his personal ideas, and if not accepted would be ‘off the table,’ and go with him when he left office.
     “Whatever Mr. Obama meant before, what he clearly means now, with his support for the Clinton plan, is the re-division of the city.” (Ref. 13)

     With respect to Israel, several contradictions between appearance and reality have arisen. In one case, the Senator is reported as stating, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” On the other hand he goes on to say, “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper.” What Obama is saying is that Gaza and the West Bank must be connected, i.e., a land-bridge between Gaza and the West Bank must be established that divides the State of Israel and makes Israel non-contiguous. Is that how to make Israel’s security sacrosanct? “By asserting that ‘The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive,’ Obama implicitly called for the partitioning of Israel, the breakup of a UN member state and U.S. democratic ally, and the sacrifice of its territorial integrity in the face of unrelenting terrorism.” (Ref. 14)

     The Democrats continue to portray themselves as the Robin Hood of the masses. They propose to raise taxes on the rich to make them pay their fair share and then to redistribute this wealth to Americans at the bottom of the income scale. One can argue that increasing the taxes on the most productive segment of the population and redistributing it to the least productive flies in the face of capitalistic logic. But then, the Democrats can hardly be charged with being ardent supporters of capitalism. Their leanings are much more in line with idealistic socialism. The lessons of history continue to evade them. Socialism as practiced by Communist Russia and Communist China has failed. Both are succeeding today because they have embraced capitalism. Formerly socialist kibbutzes in Israel have either succeeded because of becoming capitalistic entrepreneurships or they no longer have any semblance of significance. Democrats continue to scream and rail against the, “Tax breaks for the rich.” In fact, “ ‘Tax breaks for the rich’ is the big lie come alive. Under the Bush tax cuts, 25 million Americans at the bottom half of the income scale have been wiped off the federal income tax rolls. And the rich? The federal tax burden of the top 1% of earners has gone from 19% under Jimmy Carter (in 1980) to 39.4%. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% paid 3.1% of taxes in 2005. In 1995, they paid 4.6%.” (Ref. 15)

     “History shows that tax hikes bring in far less revenue than expected. It’s easy to see why: Raising taxes on those with lots of wealth shrinks the amount of capital available for investment, which means fewer new jobs, slower growth in incomes and lower overall productivity. Hardly a policy for prosperity. This is envy, pure and simple, and a tax policy based on envy is the worst kind. It sets neighbor against neighbor and downplays the contributions of skills and entrepreneurial gusto that those we derisively call the rich bring to our economy. In economics, as in most religions, envy is among the deadliest of sins.” (Ref. 16)

     Past evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that lowering taxes, rather than raising them improves both the overall economy and government revenue. This fact continually evades most Democrats who seem to always want to raise taxes and increase government spending. Some, but few democrats have grasped this fact. New York state’s new governor, David Patterson, took a stand, “against raising taxes and instead wants to put the brakes on runaway spending. Governor Patterson’s fellow Democrats in the legislature had been pushing the idea of enormously increasing the income tax on the state’s top earners.”
     “. . . Paterson is joined by New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who also came out vigorously against the idea after State Assembly Democrats endorsed a massive tax increase. . . . the mayor noted: ‘We’re in competition with other cities around the world for entrepreneurs and the best and the brightest; it’s not the time to be raising taxes.’ “
     "Paterson is one Democrat who understands some basic issues even better than many Republicans do.” (Ref. 17)

     One last reason (for now ) that the Democrats keep turning me off has to do with the war in Iraq and the war against Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism in general. The Democrats have made this fight a personal grudge match against President Bush and have placed the interests and safety of the American People and this country at risk by this blind and irrational hatred. From the beginning they have searched for ways to lose the war. Their greatest fear throughout the past 5 years has been that the United States might succeed and actually win in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere where the war with Muslim Jihadists is taking place. The Democrats’ greatest fears appear to be coming true. Progress has been made in Iraq. Troop levels are coming down. Terrorist attacks are declining. Even Barack Obama has had to face up to the truth. Previously, he made it perfectly clear that we had to withdraw from Iraq immediately if not sooner. Now, he is stating that maybe in 16 months, we could be out of Iraq, but only if circumstances allow.

     When General Petreaeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared before Congress to report on the progress of the troop surge in Iraq, we were treated to the spectacle of the Democratic members of Congress posturing in front of the TV cameras denying the facts being presented to them and once more declaring doom and gloom. Our liberal Democratic Senior Senator from Massachusetts listened but heard nothing. Instead he read a prepared statement once again opposing the war in Iraq and urging our immediate defeat and withdrawal. His speech was obviously prepared before the general and the ambassador had made their report and before any questions were posed to these men. “That Petraeus can’t wave a magic wand and heal Iraq’s wounds by a timetable set by politicians sitting in air-conditioned offices on Capitol Hill is not evidence of any ‘failure’ on his part, but only of a failure of will among those who want instant solutions to intractable problems [or those who blindly hate President Bush or want to elect a Democratic president] ” (Ref. 18).

     “Any nation consisting of citizens who embrace defeat will be a nation of losers. Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, and their sponsors in Damascus and Tehran intend to take the world back to a medieval Islamist caliphate. Whether it is Sunni or Shi’ite does not matter because Christians and Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists will either be converted, enslaved or dead.
     “If Americans do not put aside their tolerance for losing and their infatuation with self-criticism and national-denigration and focus instead on winning, Western civilization will lose this war. Winston Churchill told the House of Commons on May 13, 1940, Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.” (Ref. 19) Our dovish Democratic liberals continue to demonstrate that they are too engrossed with petty politics to understand and to take to heart this message. We have been, we are, and we will be at war with radical Islamic fundamentalism for many years to come. That war must be won! Iraq has been and still is part and parcel of that war.

     “Since Democrats have made it obvious that they have yet to comprehend what is at stake with our military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East, it’s long past time that someone lay it on the table for them.”
     “Time and again, Democrats have displayed that they have neither the will, nor the courage to take on America’s enemies and the . . . votes in both the house and the Senate on resolutions demanding we bring our soldiers home soon is further proof of that.”
     “Democrats would like to make believe that our war against Islamic extremists began with George Bush, and that our problems will all go away as soon as he leaves office, and also when the American people vote in an appeasing-loving Democrat in his place.
     “That alone is proof enough that Democrats are either ignorant of the fact that radical Islam has been at war with us for at least 30 years - which would make them stupid - or that they do realize this but would rather undermine our efforts in order to embarrass a political rival - which would mean they put party loyalty above the well being of their nation.”
     “If we leave Iraq now, the consequences are clear. Either Al-Qaeda, Iran or some other terror-friendly group will step into the void we leave behind.” (Ref. 20)

     If we were to leave Iraq as the Democrats have demanded, it would signal that we were defeated by the Islamic radicals and terrorists there. If that were true, we would next face defeat in Afghanistan since, “There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles further east.
     “After exiting from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is inconceivable that we would then send U.S. forces into northwest Pakistan where Osama bin Ladin has been rebuilding his base.”
     “Opponents of the U.S. mission in Iraq say they want to ‘change course.’ Most refuse to specify what their new course would be. Others say they want U.S. troops to ‘redeploy’ to friendly countries in the region. But in international relations, nothing cools a friendship like defeat.”
     “Over time, the only Muslim-majority states to resist the Islamists will be those that accommodate the Islamists.”
     “Israel will hold on - or die trying. You can’t imagine a second Holocaust within a hundred years? Imagine harder.” Not a pleasant scenario, is it? But it’s a scenario that our Islamic Terrorist friends are counting on. Do I want to take a chance on this scenario playing out by putting Democrats into office? Not likely!" (Ref. 21)

     “Democrats have tried desperately to derail the Iraq war - by voting for ‘immediate’ troop withdrawals, and playing games with the Pentagon’s budget during a time of war. They called General Petraeus a liar. They’ve attacked private sector contractors in Iraq. It didn’t work. Now, we’re winning the war, and they’re desperate. Whatever charms their domestic policies might have for you, the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security.” (Ref. 22)

     Recently, in a discussion of abortion and women's choice issues, Senator Obama was asked at what stage in the devlopment of a fetus did he consider life to begin. His response was that the answer to the question was "above my pay scale." Contrast this response to the statement made by a Democratic president some 6 decades ago. At that time, President Harry Truman said that, "the buck stops here," referring to the presidency. When the hard questions and decisions arise, do I want a president who claims that the decision is "above my pay scale" or do I want a president who will make the hard decisions, with the position that, "the buck stops here?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References