Democratic strategist James Carville

Keith you are correct. Thanks for identifying the other political celebrity. I appreciate you reading and commenting on my blog.

The closest place to pick up a sign would be Dianne Alexander's garage in Conejo.

Why hasn't Neal Andrews e-mailed me about this party? Isn't he the Ventura County chair for McCain?

Remember Straight-Talking McCain's flip flop on offshore drilling that just happened to coincide with a $300K windfall from Hess execs? There's more to the story.....

How can you consider supporting this man?

GS,

You forgot to mention Obama's flip-flop on offshore drilling. Oh yeah, I forgot, he's forgiven because he's the Messiah...

Flamo,

So, you admit McCain flip flopped on off shore oil drilling whereas Barack Obama said he would support a compromise if it funded alternative energy?

And what is with this Messiah stuff? Sounds like an attack on the religious people that support Barack Obama. I don't see any people calling him the return of Jesus, do you?

NO, Mongo, I didn't forget that Obama said he'd reconsider his opposition under certain conditions AND that it didn't take $300K checks from oil firms to get him to say so.

Brian,

Compromise? The cynic in me says he was paying attention to the latest national polls that show the majority of Americans favoring offshore drilling.

Regarding the Messiah comment, you're reading way too much into it, my friend. It's simply a reference to his treatment by the press as the second coming.

I am sure both candidates are looking at ways they can appeal to the public in regards to energy independence. John McCain changed his position and so did Barack Obama. I don't understand what they argument is about. I think it is good that politicians change their mind when the situations are altered. It is also good when they reach out and support compromises that put us ahead of their ambitions.

Barack Obama could have stood firm and not supported a compromise to avoid people like you chanting flip flop but he did what he thought was right.

Kind of like McCain flip flopping on immigration, taxes, off shore oil drilling and confronting what he had called agents of intolerance in his own party.

Brian,

I think that most politicians flip-flop at some point in their political careers. The challenge for voters is knowing when a change in position is sincere, or simply a way of pandering to voters when the political winds shift.

Although both presidential candidates have changed their position on offshore oil drilling, it is much harder to reconcile Obama's position with that of his party. Democrats have continued to staunchly oppose oil drilling and nuclear power, which makes Obama's sudden change of heart a little curious. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see a republican candidate come out in support of oil drilling. But Obama's sudden willingness to reconsider his position conveniently coincides with a large shift in public opinion on the issue. It just seems more out of character for a democrat to suddenly see the virtues of oil drilling, especially when his colleagues and core supporters remain adamantly opposed.

He also seems to be attempting to have a nuanced position of supporting oil drilling while also being opposed to it. This idea of agreeing to something you disagree with in order to reach a "compromise" seems a little half-baked. At least McCain made a full conversion, but Obama seems to want his cake and eat it too. People will remain suspicious of his sincerity as long as he continues to attempt to straddle the line. Otherwise it sounds like he is giving it lip service while privately telling his environmentalist supporters not to worry. Given that vocal environmentalist groups have remained silent on Obama's sudden willingness to allow offshore drilling makes a lot of people suspect that his public statements don't reflect his true position.

People want to know that a candidate means what they say. Most people have no problem believing that McCain will allow offshore drilling if elected. Obama's quasi-compromise position, combined with the fact that his core supporters are on the opposite extremes makes his support for drilling less plausible. That's why Obama is, rightfully, getting more scrutiny for his flip-flop.

Bubba,

The biggest reason you mentioned was because he is going against his own party? That usually impresses people. It isn't just his own party that is against it. I believe Tony Strickland has said he is against it. I could be wrong about that though. Arnold has also said he is against it.

Now, what about all of those other major McCain flip flops? You going to explain them all away or admit McCain supporters shouldn't be running around yelling flip flop as a credible, serious charge.

Mongo Gibson,

Why don't you give up blogging, hook up with your buddy Chris Wangsaporn, and kiss up to Strickland.

I see where you're card-carrying member of California Club for Growth. Figures...

Brian

That is not what I said. It is because his change in position on oil drilling seems insincere. He also hedged his bet by stating that he is against drilling but willing to consider allowing it as a "compromise" if necessary. That hardly constitutes taking a brave stand against his own party. Obviously the environmentalists in his own party aren't convinced of his sincerity as they don't seem very alarmed by his recent statements.

We also know that Governor Arnold is a pretty moderate republican (RINO anyone?) who is very socially liberal. He is also Governor of a state that has had a history of strong public opposition to offshore drilling. Is his position really surprising? It's not like he is under tremendous pressure to support oil drilling, or that he has ever shown strong loyalty the the party platform. But we are not talking about Arnold or Strickland, so please stop trying to change the topic.

The truth is that Obama's flip-flop on oil drilling seems like overt political pandering, given that expansion of offshore oil drilling conflicts with the position of his party and his core supporters. Obama also has not made his position clear. Constrast him with McCain, who, as a republican, is moving to a comfortable position within his own party by suddenly becoming an oil drilling proponent. McCain has also been very direct in stating that he supports more offshore oil drilling, period. That's pretty straightforward and easy for voters to understand.

Meanwhile, Obama says he is opposed to drilling but will support it as a compromise if necessary. So is he for drilling or against it? No so clear. At the same time, his core supporters and the top leaders in his party have remained adamantly opposed to any additional drilling under any circumstances. So Obama appears to be wanting to have it both ways by saying to his core supporters that he is opposed to more drilling, while simultaneously saying to the rest of us that he supports more drilling. Which is why he is getting so much scrutiny on the issue. It is ridiculous for him to have a conditional position based on a theoretical scenario. Is he for drilling or against it? That is what voters want to know.

Both politicians flip-flopped on the issue, but Obama's change of heart give more of an appearance of political opportunism given the ambiguity and obvious contradictions of his various statements on the topic. The lesson here is that not all flip-flops are equal. Obama seems to be having his own John Kerry style "I voted for it before I was against it" moment.

Most people I know are against off shore drilling UNLESS it is necessary and ONLY if it is limited and closely controlled and ONLY AFTER the oil industry has given the American people concessions. This idea is nothing new and its why the Dems aren't overly concerned about Obama's stance.

The details of when it becomes necessary, how it is limited and what concessions must be made are moving targets; they're not fixed on some stone tablets at the DNC office. Again, that's why the reasonable voters aren't shaken by Obama's plans.

McCain, on the other hand, has announced carte blanche for the oil companies to drill away wherever and whenever they want. He won't even consider the consequences or the possibilities. It's just more shoot from the hip politics as usual from McCain. He may have garnered some support from oil execs but a lot of Repubs and probably a lot more DTSs see his flip flops as a sign of a lack of character...or a clone of Bush.

Funny, the public opinion polls show a much higher level of support McCain's position on offshore drilling. I guess that means that "reasonable voters" like yourself are out of the mainstream. Then again, there is nothing mainstream about your leftist rhetoric anyway.

Wow! The same poll shows a much higher level of support for Obama's position on offshore drilling, also! I guess that means you don't know what you're looking at, BK. Maybe the polls should have asked, "Do you favor giving oil firms complete control over drilling off the CA coast, as McCain has offered?" You still think 51% of CAs would have said yes?

And what was so "leftist" about my rhetoric? Why are you so obsessed with tossing that term about?

Not Mongo,

I have no problem joining organizations that reflect my views. What organizations do you belong to besides HARC ("Hate All Republicans Coalition")?

Once again our self-proclaimed "reasonable voter" goes on another rant against big oil and republicans. Your position on every issue is anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and pro big government socialism. If the shoe fits.

I have to assume you're referring to me, BK, in avoiding my questions so I'll ask on what issues am I anti-capitalist (I bet I'm MORE pro capitalist than you), anti-globalization (again, I'm for real globalization, not one-sided globalization) and pro-big government (once again, I bet you're a bigger pro-big govt supported than I)?

Your version of tightly controlled, regulated and limited capitalism is not capitalism at all, which is why I find it hilarious that socialists like yourself declare yourselves to really be capitalists. Perhaps you should look up the definition of capitalism so we can at least get our terms straight. Your assertion that you are for "real globalization" is also ridiculous. What exactly is "one-sided" globalization anyway? By definition if it were one-sided it wouldn't be globalization at all. You need to take a class in economics my friend. But at least you're always good for a laugh.

I believe in a level economic field for everyone, including consumers. Your brand of psuedo-capitalism that requires govt limits on consumer freedoms and massive subsidies and favorable regulations for businesses is NOT capitalism, its a planned economy. So I win!

One-sided globalism is one where the USA follow the rules of free trade while all others get to ignore those rules. Real globalization requires a level playing field between ALL trading partners. I win again!

And you have been supporting a massive growth of govt over the past three decades, I'm against it. You support a growing deficit, I'm against it. You support borrowing billions to balance the budget, I'm against it. I win again!

Next time you try to avoid answering questions try not to use labels and call names that you clearly don't understand. After this exchange you've managed to clearly define yourself in the labels you so easily toss at others.

Gary, you really do live in your own little world. You're like the kid who plays the sore loser by running off with the ball while screaming "I win!". OK, if you say so. Now go and play while the adults have a conversation of their own.

Gary:

What is a "level economic field?" I keep hearing this euphemism thrown around, but no one wants to define what it means.

What should be level in the economy? Wealth? Prices? Income? Profits?

It would be easier to explain what makes an unlevel economic playing field.

Everyone bemoans the high costs of introducing new drugs & medical equipment to the marketplace yet its the large pharmaceutical firms that have lobbied to place most of the costly, time-consuming regulations in place that make it virtually impossible for smaller firms to gain entry into the marketplace. That's NOT capitalism and it doesn't just happen in the medical world.

Congress recently passed changes to the bankruptcy laws that make it nearly impossible for a family to save their home in the event of a medical catastrophe yet firms that cheat their shareholders and fail their customers are free to file bankruptcy after bankruptcy to avoid paying losses. Yet that same congress also passed laws preventing the victims of medical neglect and malpractice from suing for damages. In addition congress has introduce similar no-damages legislation to protect a broad range of negligent manufacturers when their products maim or kill users. That's NOT a level playing field.

More and more courts are interfering with the capitalist system by allowing businesses to either unilaterally refuse to abide by their labor contracts or to take possession of worker benefits and funds to use as collateral. The airline industry is rife with companies like United that simple said they wont abide by their pension deals because doing so hurts their bottom line. Yet I don't believe there's a single instance in a courtroom where a federal judge has voided a worker's personal contract with his debtor. That's certainly not a level playing field at work.

Hedge funds and private banks are being bailed out with taxpayer dollars for the sole purpose of protecting the principal and profits of relatively few investors while nothing yet has been done to help the millions who have lost their equity values due to the mismanagement and corrupt practices of these same financial institutions. level playing field?

A level economic playing field has nothing to do with the disparity of wealth or income but all to do with letting everyone be free to trade without restraints that are designed to favor one side.

Now, that we know what a level playing field isn't, how about telling us what it is or what you meant?

We could go into detail over any one of your topics, but I was really looking for rule sets on what a level playing field actually means.

When I hear Obama or Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards say level the playing field, I'm not sure they mean exactly what you mean.

If I may be off topic for a moment:
Scott Blough,
What is a level ball field to you? When Tony Strickland teams up with tobacco companies to target children as their next victims?

Tony Strickland should look out for the people's health not large tobacco company profits. That might help make a level ball field.

Scott

What do you think the US should do about the Russian invasion of Georgia?

I think we should go over there and kick some major Ruskie behind!!!

Why is Russia the enemy and not Georgia?

Maybe because Georgia is an ally and Russia is an adversary? Duh...

In addition, the Ruskies appear to be up to their old adventurous, expansionist tricks again. They seem to want to send a clear message to the rest of the break-away Republics and the rest of the world not to mess with them, or the punishment will be swift and harsh.

Good timing to, right in concert with the opening of the Olympics.

Why is Russia an adversary? They despise Islamic extremism and they are fighting against ethnic nationalism dividing their region into many different parts.

You seem like you are just looking for enemies to declare war on.

Vlad,

Have you been paying attention to the news and current events for the last 30 years? They are an adversary, for one thing, because they go against us at every opportunity, from supplying weapons to rogue and oppressive nations (Sudan for one) to every resolution we have offered before the United Nations Security Council.

Big deal, they're against Islamic extremism. Only because they feel threatened by it in some of their border areas, not because of any responsibility they feel to forge allegiances with the West to fight against it.

You say they fight against ethnic nationalism dividing their region? You better believe it, baby. It is apparent they're reining it in in a big way with their recent military incursion into Georgia. I predict this is just the beginning of a series of military actions Russia will be taking to bring others back into their realm in an ongoing power grab.

They've already drawn the line in the sand.

I noticed that the war promoter Lemay hasn't been back. Typical American. Start a war and run away.

Lemay would you being willing to fight to keep a break away province in Georgia? You are a warmonger like Bush and Cheney, not a war hero.

Vlad,

Oh, so I guess Bush and Cheney are warmongers, but Putin and Medvedev are heroes because they invaded little, tiny Georgia, huh? Makes perfect sense.

Why don't you hop on the next plane back to Moscow if you're so enamored with your two heroes - Putin and Medvedev!

Would you, "Man up" and fight to the death if needed to keep a break away province a part of Georgia? I bet you would "cut and run" like LeMay did!

Those of us fighting for peace have no choice but fight to the death. It is not those who want peace that have cut and run. It's those who want war that have cut and run. The Republicans have cut and run from the constitution. The Republicans have cut and run from federal laws. The Republicans have cut and run from intelligent thought. The Republicans have cut and run from human decency. It is you the Republican religious extremists who would have told Jesus he cut and run from the Romans.

What about the Democrats?

They have cut and run on doing something to resolve high gas prices and the energy crisis by going on vacation instead of taking a vote on offshore drilling. They have cut and run from dealing with the federal budget deficit by continually voting in favor of higher spending on federal programs. They have cut and run from adopting a responsible foreign policy plan that addresses Islamo-Fascism and global terrorism in a meaningful way. They have cut and run from reining in extremist environmental programs that create economic havoc, do nothing meaningful to deal with global climate change, and pander to the leftist Luddites who would be happy to see us return to the Stone Age.