Barack Obama surrogate Bill Richardson shamefully prostituted his foreign policy street cred today by both hitting at John McCain and blamming President Bush for the Russian invasion of Georgia.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said McCain’s campaign “is run by lobbyists that represent Georgia and other countries.”

“He takes huge amounts of money from oil companies that are profiting in the (former) Soviet Union and many parts of the world,” the Democrat told ABC News, attempting to depict a conflict of interest for McCain.

Richardson, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, said the crisis vindicated Obama’s pledge to rebuild US alliances in Europe that were strained under President George W. Bush.

“This has been one of the failures of the Bush administration, failing to build a strong relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, so we’d have the kind of influence to persuade them to stop some of these very, very dangerous efforts within their territory,” he said.

Richardson really ought to be embarassed at this awful display of political posturing such a fuid foreign policy and security issue. Georgia is an ally of the US and our other allies whom Richardson spins to suit his own political objectives. Of little matter to Richardson is the fact that Georgia is both a democracy and who’s troops serve alongside US troops in Iraq.

Barack Obama offered a lame statement in response to the most serious act of aggression by the Russians since it invaded Afghanistan 29 years ago.

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

Observes Powerline:

Strongly! Obama found no reason to distinguish between Russia and Georgia in strongly condemning the outbreak of violence. Or perhaps he found it too difficult to do so.

Meanwhile, John McCain shows his grasp of the situation by issuing a strong condemnation while puting events in imformative perspective. Here’s John McCain’s statement in its entirity:

This afternoon I spoke, for the second time since the crisis began, with Georgian President Saakashvili. It is clear the situation is dire. Russian aggression against Georgia continues, with attacks occurring far beyond the Georgian region of South Ossetia. As casualties continue to mount, the international community must do all it can to avert further escalations. Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border. I again call on the Government of Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Georgia.
Given this threat to Euro-Atlantic security, I am pleased to see the United States, the European Union, and NATO acting together by sending a delegation to the region, in an effort to broker a cease fire. This is an important first step.

The United Nations has been prevented from taking any meaningful action by Russian objections. In view of this, I welcome the statements of democratic nations defending the sovereignty of Georgia and condemning Russian actions.

I strongly support the declaration issued by the Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and their commitment that ‘aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers.’

I share their regret that NATO’s decision to withhold from Georgia a Membership Action Plan may have been viewed as a green light for aggression in the region. As they propose, a new international peacekeeping force should be created, in light of — as they observe — the ‘obvious bankruptcy of Russian “peacekeeping operations” in its immediate neighborhood.’ In addition, Finnish Foreign Minister Stubb, the Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has said there can be no return to the status quo in South Ossetia and that Russia cannot serve as a mediator in the South Ossetian conflict. Each of these leaders represents a country that has undergone what Georgia is now experiencing.

Thanks to Powerline again for issuing McCain’s entire statement.

From Tim Shipman:

Craig Ferguson: “Barack Obama was in Germany” today, and “he did this speech and 100,000 people showed up. There were so many Germans shouting and screaming that France…surrendered just in case.”

Jay Leno: “Barack Obama back from his big European tour. Did you see him in Europe? People were cheering him, holding up signs, blowing him kisses. And that was just the American media covering the story.”

H/T: Lucianne’s News Forum Home Page

From Ben Smith of the Politico.

ANNCR: Paid for by John McCain 2008.

I’ve always found spanish-speaking legal immigrants in our country to be hard-working, christian, and family-oriented.Even the illegals are, too. Now this is aside from the thugs who are here for mayheam, but these clowns won’t be voting. The former will be and they like kitchen sink issues. They also probably feel that they can trust McCain not to throw them under the bus. He demonstrated that in his unpopular stance with conservatives on immigration. Look for more pointed outrheach from McCain and his spanish-speaking serrogates like Sen. Mel Martinez and even Jeb Bush’s son

From Rick Moran:

With the press eager to jump on every sign of disunity, with a former candidate whose supporters think she deserves her moment in the sun, with a former president probably secretly wishing that he loses in November, and with his poll numbers stagnating or dropping, Barack Obama faces the greatest challenge to his leadership of the party and his chances for victory in November in Denver three weeks from now.

How he handles these problems will no doubt affect the decision of the American people when they go to the polls in November.

Its often difficult just saying why John McCain is a better choice to lead than Barack Obama. Perhaps its best to draw comparissons to the last Democrat Senator who ran for president, John Kerry. Heres what my friend Sara says:

While Kerry and one of his co-conspirators, Fonda, were practicing their diplomatic skills with the enemy, John McCain and his compatriots were being beaten, starved, tortured and the emboldened North Vietnamese were given new life and the war was prolonged.

While Kerry was sipping French wine while negotiating illegally with the enemy, John McCain was in the most disgusting cell, drinking in filth.

While Kerry was proclaiming that our troops and their officers were committing horrible atrocities, John McCain and the other prisoners with him were suffering horrible atrocities.

Thanks, Sara….and thanks also to all my friends at Just One Minute

The Wall Street Journal has a take down of Barack Obama’s call on Friday for a tax on “windfall profits” to pay for additional stimulus checks. Dem use of the “windfall profits” mantra is fast and loose with ecomomic realities. For businesses, profit margains is the accurate way to measure any business’ success.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any “windfall” tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we’re missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

So, oil companies make about a 10% profit on its investment. As Obama and Durbin want to tax Exxon again on top of being taxed already. With the average oil company profit being at less than 9%, the only way that oil companies can sustain vaibility would be to raise its prices at the pump. Anyhow, how do oil companies compare to othier industries in profit margains: The WSJ tells us:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

Obama’s increasingly bizzare statements about the issue continues to impress. What he refers to as our “addiction” to oil he says can be dealt with by simply making sure you have enough air in your tires. His proposal at additional taxes on oil companies will only result in increased cost at the pump - a cost whose burden will be felt greatest by working families.

The WSJ goes further in its overview and closes with the following:

The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

So what is Obama’s and Durbin’s motivation? Is floating the windfall profits tax a trial balloon for voters? As both men know implementation of additional taxes on the oil industry will result in higher costs at the pump one can only wonder what their motivations might be.

We were told that Barack Obama’s trip to the war zone, Israel and Europe would bolster him with voters at home. It didn’t. So here’s why by Obama himself:

Heading home from an overseas trip aimed at strengthening his foreign policy credentials, Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday he’s not counting on an immediate political boost and thinks it’s just as likely he’ll experience a short-term dip in polls simply because he’s been out of the country for nine days.

“The reason that I thought this trip was important was I am convinced that many of the issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad,” Obama said, speaking outside 10 Downing Street after his private meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Thats rich.

So you were expecting that you would be hurt somehow? Or that it would provide no benefit? Really now?

Then why in sam hill did you go in the first place? Wasn’t it because you wanted to seem more in touch with foreign policy and put voters more at ease? Wouldn’t this have manifested itself in the polling data?

Obama now is averaging more than one gaffe and slip-up dialy. Yesterdays revelation that he called wounded soldiers on the phone after taking the heat for not going was making a mistake and attemping to correct it by making a worse one. Talk about transparent.

Now today he’s saying that they believed the trip wasn’t expected to help politically prior to going. And the day’s not over yet.

H/T: Lucianne Goldberg

Maybe: From Newsbusters:

Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. They are known as PUMA (”People United Means Action” or “Party Unity My Ass”). PUMA was formed last month in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton conceding the Democrat nomination to Obama. However, contrary to being just a desperate last gasp by Hillary’s supporters, PUMA activities seem to be surging lately despite the overseas trip by Obama which was widely heralded by the mainstream media. In fact, the official PUMA PAC website has today announced, in a message directed towards Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, their view that the Obama trip was a “flop”:

Curious. I’ve been wondering what drives this particular movement. Is it just bitter Clinton supporters? Or are there some staunch Dems who really are unhappy with Obama and the manner in which he will have obtained the nomination. Maybe both? And what will happen after the convention? Will they just come home as most Dem talking heads are saying?