It seems like Barack Obama shares a problem with Hillary!--a faulty memory when it comes to shady dealings and associates:
Dem presidential contender Barack Obama's handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO "recollection" of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko's Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko's guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!
Hey, maybe he just drank so many toasts that he blacked out the memory. Maybe in addition to giving up smoking, he should join AA?
Must be that "new politics" I've heard so much about.
And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama (and Michelle, and Jeremiah) just keep on digging:
The American people will forgive slips, even condescension IF they are followed by genuine apology and not repeated ad infinitum. But in this case, there will be a growing weariness, followed by anger, at the notion that a Presidential candidate thinks he can say whatever he wishes, associate with whomever he wants, and feel it's the electorate's, not his own, ensuing problem. So the rub for the Obama campaign is not simply that he has no experience outside the Ivy League and Chicago, or even that he made a Faustian bargain with the Trinity church to jump-start his career, but rather his hubris this spring -- which as we speak is bringing on a summer nemesis.
I'm hoping for a fall nemesis, myself.
This is just too funny for words. Haha.
Every time Mr. Simberg thinks he's got that final thing that is going to knock Obama off, Obama comes roaring back.
Check out the Drudge numbers on multiple polls today. Obama seems to be benefiting from bitter-gate, while Hillary (Mr. Simberg's current faux paramour) seems to be viewed as a manipulative lying itch. And now both Bruce Springsteen and the owner of the Steelers endorse Obama. Hmmm, hmmm, maybe they know how to read more than two sentences and keep it in context. Context is clearly Mr. Simberg's analytical Achilles heel; an area that he needs to develop so he can imporve his powers of prediction.
Maybe Transterrestrial needs to start talking to more earthbound common people . Or he can keep entertaining us with his theories of Obama's Anti-semitism, Marxism and Elitism. It's certainly more entertaining than when he was bashing up the heroic John McCain.
This is just too funny for words. Haha.
Subnormal IQs are often easily entertained. You might want to play with a rubber band. I've heard that's fun, too, for folks like you.
Every time Mr. Simberg thinks he's got that final thing that is going to knock Obama off, Obama comes roaring back.
There is no "final thing" that will "knock Obama off." It is an accumulation of things, and there are already an overabundance of things that make him toast in the fall.
Sounds like Obama is a veteran pol who has learned how to not recall as well as Bill Clinton. Maybe he's neither an outsider nor inexperienced.
Well Mr. Simberg, good luck to you in your Obama Hunt. Keep us posted on your findings. I don't mind your insults. You are part of the Change We Want and We Hope for your Healing.
Getting back to the hunt, when are you going to link to Obama Seniors academic paper which shows where Obama's thinking comes from?
Or even better, report the assertion at that font of knowledge, NRO, from that brilliant Scholar and Papist, Kathryn Jean Lopez, that the only people who considered mixed marriages in the 60's were Marxists. The latter would be irrefutable proof of a Marxian Conception, think ye?
These continuing attacks on Omama do demonstrate that the Republicans would rather face Hillary Clinton in November.
Clinton really is a bad campaigner since even if Obama gave her a hanging curve ball with this bitter-gate stuff, she still manages to swing and miss.
Her most recent "attack ad" to appeal to Pennsylvanians in the context of Obama's gaffe features a New Jersey campaign worker play acting an outraged Pennsylvanian.
The fellow explained himself thusly:
Well Mr. Simberg, good luck to you in your Obama Hunt. Keep us posted on your findings. I don't mind your insults.
Well, that's good. You must have gotten used to it after all these years, what with it being the truth and all.
These continuing attacks on Omama do demonstrate that the Republicans would rather face Hillary Clinton in November.
Not being a Republican, I wouldn't know. I do in fact think that Obama is the weaker candidate, but as I've been saying for months, I don't think that either Dem candidate has a chance of winning in November.
Bill White wrote:
These continuing attacks on Omama do demonstrate that the Republicans would rather face Hillary Clinton in November.
So, what did your faux support for Mike Huckabee demonstrate, Bill? At least Rand is not pretending he's about to switch parties, as you did.
BTW, are you ever going to explain how you've gone from being a cheerleader for ESAS to being a cheerleader for Obama (who is not an ESAS supporter)?
How many times did you tell us that ESAS was the only "politically viable" space policy, and that if we didn't support ESAS it would mean a terrible catastrophe?
Yet, here you are, backing a man who would destroy ESAS. Does that mean it's now politically acceptable for people to question ESAS? Or that it's politically acceptable for Obama to question ESAS but still not acceptable for lesser beings?
Or have you just decided that space policy isn't important after all?
(Of course, you won't answer any of these questions because you never defend your own statements. You'll just keep repeating your own contradictions.)
Edward,
Originally, I liked ESAS when Ares 1 was four segments with an SSME upper stage and was predicted to fly crew by 2011.
I also liked Mike Griffin because he often said that permanent settlement was the ultimate objective of human spaceflight. For myself, we should go to stay and make babies (eventually) and spread humanity (further away eventually) across the solar system.
Science only as the long term objective? Send robots or use private money (not tax dollars). I would also be very pleased to see Red Bull and the media finance space exploration rather than the taxpayers.
Anyway, back to ESAS. A 5 segment mother of all paint shakers Ares 1 and a 5 year gap is not acceptable to me and I now prefer Direct 2.0 and the Jupiter line of heavy lift.
In other words, Yes Edward, I am off the ESAS bandwagon.
Clinton and McCain? If you want to stick with the Stick, vote for them, either one.
Obama is very much a space skeptic however the twin realities of loss of prestige from flying Soyuz to ISS and the loss of jobs in many battleground states means Obama will be unable to simply close down NASA even if he wanted to. Too many Congressional Democrats support NASA for that to happen.
And that, mixed together with Obama's skepticism and "show me why" mentality about space means we might actually get a good space program.
Originally, I liked ESAS when Ares 1 was four segments with an SSME upper stage and was predicted to fly crew by 2011.
And ridiculed us when we told you those things were not realistic. So, what has changed?
I also liked Mike Griffin because he often said that permanent settlement was the ultimate objective of human spaceflight.
He said that, but he never did anything to make that goal a reality. The political term is "lip service."
a 5 year gap is not acceptable to me and I now prefer Direct 2.0 and the Jupiter line of heavy lift.
In other words, you want something even bigger, cooler, and probably more expensive than Ares -- something that does nothing to further "permanent settlement as the ultimate objective of human spaceflight."
The "5 year gap" is simply rhetoric. During that period, private enterprise will send more astronauts into space than NASA has in the last 40 years. If that's a "gap" in human spaceflight, then bring on the gap!
In any case, Obama believes a five-year gap would be quite acceptable. He's said as much, so if you really believe the things you post here, it seems you are backing the wrong horse.
And that, mixed together with Obama's skepticism and "show me why" mentality about space means we might actually get a good space program.
I agree -- but that would be a very different program from what we have now. It would not be the "unlimited funding for big expensive rockets and Apollo Redux" that you say you want.
So, I ask again. If you really believe Apollo Redux is a good idea, why do you support Obama who would be unlikely to support it? Or do you just believe that space policy is not important?