McComeback

McCain is finally sounding pretty good:

We finally learned what Senator Obama's economic goal is, spread the wealth. In a radio interview revealed this week, he said the same thing, that one of the, quote, tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about redistributive change. You see, Senator Obama believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He said that even though lower taxes on investment help our economy, he favors higher taxes on investment for, quote, fairness. There's nothing fair about driving our economy into the ground!

He's more interested in controlling wealth than creating it! And redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I'm going to create wealth for all Americans by creating opportunity for all Americans! Senator Obama is running to be-redistributionist-in-chief. I'm running to be commander-in-chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I'm running to create wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I'm running to make everyone successful.

One additional thought on the Obama interview I posted yesterday from Thomas Jefferson (one of those darn founding fathers who tried to put obstacles in the way of politicians like Obama):

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

95%

*Updated*

Obama claims that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. When confronted with the fact that more than 30% of Americans don't pay any income taxes (15% more very little) and that this would require checks to be sent to these people, he modified the plan to include a "work requirement," as if it makes sense to send welfare checks (paid for by someone else, against their will) to people as long as they are working. Obama's "tax calculator" ad claims to show your tax cut under his plan vs. John McCain's. It shows no tax cut under McCain's plan for anyone making less than $250,000. This is a complete falsehood, equal to the Obama's other lies like associating McCain with Hispanic slurs, cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security.

McCain's health care plan provides a big tax cut for all Americans. Obama and Biden have done their best to distort the plan, but every independent analysis of the plan has shown that it benefits 95% of Americans. The plan provides a $5,000 tax credit to everyone who wants to buy their own health plan. A tax credit is different than a deduction. If you owed $10,000 in taxes, but bought your own health plan, you would now owe $5,000. Isn't that a tax cut?

Obama says this plan will cause people to lose their employer based insurance, but that's kind of the point. Obama either doesn't understand economics or is being intentionally misleading. Your health insurance from your employer is part of your compensation. Your total compensation is based on the value of your work to your employer and the availability of workers with comparable skills. McCain's plan would encourage many people to choose to get all of their compensation in cash and then buy their own health insurance. They would get an increase in take home pay and a tax cut.

More importantly, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. Then 100% of people that pay income tax will get a tax increase, though Obama doesn't see it that way - he considers it the end of a tax cut. Don't you see the difference. McCain would extend the Bush tax cuts and he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would save working families with children ensnared by the AMT an average of $2700 a year.

Obama has also proposed raising the payroll taxes for anyone making over $94,700 a year and would raise capital gains taxes from 15% to 20%, a substantial tax increase for the 50% of Americans who own stock. And let's not forget his new taxes on businesses, which will be passed down to you through higher prices.

I guess the calculator missed a few things.

AP Poll: Race Now Tied

Hope you didn't put too much stock into the media's take on the third debate. They marched in lock step, saying Obama won the debate. Too bad the voters thought otherwise. The latest AP pool (among likely voters) show that McCain made up significant ground since the debate, closing the gap to 43% vs. 42%. The media is trying their hardest to get Obama elected, but it might not be enough.

I subscribe to Newsweek, for reasons that are often unclear to me. The last four issues have been non-stop Obama cheer leading and McCain/Palin bashing. I don't recall a single article in the last four issues supporting a McCain presidency. One cover called Obama "Mr. Cool", contrasting him with McCain as "Mr. Hot" (Obama is so cool and collected, as opposed to that maniac, John McCain). Another with Sarah Palin proclaimed "She's One of the Folks (and that's the problem)." Another Palin cover dug up an unflattering, six year old photo of her holding a shotgun (she's one of those gun nuts!).

This will be a close election. The pollsters want to influence the election (and discourage Republicans), but they also want to be right. The closer we get to Nov. 4, the closer the polls will get to the true feelings of likely voters.

Biden: World Thinks Obama is Weak

Senator Biden: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Do we really need more international crises? Wouldn't it be better to have a president who didn't invite our enemies to challenge us? We live in dangerous times, with the challenge of Muslim extremism, Russian aggression, and the ever expanding power of China. Our enemies know John McCain means business. As Biden readily admits, they don't feel the same about Obama. Biden was asked during the primary whether Obama was ready to be president. He replied, "I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

Compare that to what Biden has said about John McCain: "America would be well served [by a McCain presidency]," and "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, I think the country would be better off."

McCain responded: "America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I've been tested, my friends." I think I might like Palin's response even better: "I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden's next speaking engagement."

Down to Two Points

McCain had his best debate performance last night and the polls are moving. Gallup has Obama up 49% to McCain's 47% among likely voters, within the margin of error. However, I felt like McCain could have done much better.

On the abortion question, McCain failed to articulate why we need originalist judges on the Supreme Court instead of activist judges. The point is not whether or not the judges are personally pro-life or pro-abortion, but whether they believe in interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent. Roe v. Wade is an example of judicial activism, where judges somehow found a "right" to abortion in the Constitution where there is none. Their ruling usurped the right of the states to decide this issue. An originalist judge would overrule Roe v. Wade regardless of their personal views on abortion and then each state would pass legislation regarding abortion. And the bill that Obama opposed that would force hospitals to care for babies born after botched abortions? It did not infringe upon a woman's "right" to an abortion at all. It is understandable that Obama would lie about this, given how reprehensible his position on the issue is.

On the economy, McCain didn't explain how the Democrats have screwed our economy through their meddling in the housing industry. McCain and Republicans attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and were opposed by Democrats. The bad loans encouraged by Democratic policies are what have caused this meltdown. Does Obama still want to increase capital gains taxes? That would really help my 401k come back.

On taxes, McCain didn't ask Obama to explain how he can cut taxes for 95% of Americans when only about 65% of Americans pay income taxes. McCain did make the case forcefully that raising anyone's taxes during times like these is a recipe for disaster. Obama maintains that it's only "fair" to raise taxes on businesses. As McCain noted, American corporations already pay the second highest tax rates in the developed world. Obama doesn't seem to understand that this country doesn't have some special right to the trillions in capital around the world. If investors can get a better return somewhere else, the money will go there, taking the jobs with it. Also, if we increase corporate taxes, who do you think pays for the increase? They are passed down to you and I through higher prices, in effect taxing us instead.

This Gallup poll is encouraging. The undecided voters are often people that don't pay much attention to politics until the end. They also tend to blame the incumbent for a weak economy. Hopefully McCain can keep making the case for his plan for the economy.

McCain's Letter

Here is the letter from Senator McCain and 19 other Senators, sent in 2006, demanding reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The letter said it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."

Neither Obama nor any other Democrat signed the letter. If Congress had acted on McCain's recommendations we might have avoided this economic crisis and I might have the courage to look at my 401k. Unfortunately, Democrats fought reform tooth and nail, perhaps preferring the political benefits of providing "affordable housing" to their constituents and the campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Is this the party we want in charge of Washington?

McCain's Healthcare Plan

Obama and Biden have been distorting McCain's health care plan both in the debates and in commercials. Obama says it will be a net tax on you and that you'll be less likely to have insurance. This is absolutely false.

The average employer contribution to family coverage is $9,325. Everyone with employer contributions under $20,000 benefits under McCain's plan. McCain's plan allows for you to have a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance for your family if your job doesn't include it as part of your compensation. Most jobs would probably still offer health insurance in order to attract good employees, but the new tax credit may encourage some people to choose to get their own insurance and get more in cash from their employer.

One advantage to having individual health insurance is that it is portable if you switch jobs. McCain's plan also allows you to shop across state lines for the plan that fits your needs best. Obama considers this incredibly dangerous because you are too stupid to know which plan to choose. States usually weigh down insurance plans with too much regulation. Liberals love it when the government requires insurance companies to cover everything, but it makes insurance incredibly expensive. You might want a more basic plan you can actually afford, but the state government has probably made that plan illegal. McCain would allow you to choose from plans offered around the country. McCain also favors tort reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits that also drive health care costs up. Obama opposes tort reform, as do most Democrats who get millions from trial lawyers.

Obama's plan is to force employers to either provide health insurance or to pay a fine to the government (Obama says "asking employers" instead of "forcing" like they would have any choice in the matter). It's really impossible to know the impact of this plan because Obama refuses to say how much the fine would be. If it is high, it would encourage employers to offer health benefits, but it would also destroy jobs for people who currently don't have health insurance because many employers wouldn't be able to afford it. If the fine is low, it would encourage the employer to just enroll the employee in the government's plan and we would see a mass exodus from private insurance plans into the government plan. Voila, government run health care. All-knowing government officials would then ration health care to keep down costs and the free markets role in health care would be over.

Gosh Darn It, Joe!

National Review Online has a good article about Biden's debate performance. Biden was lying through his teeth through most of the debate.

For the most part, these were gross exaggerations or convenient fictions aimed to allow him to make a point he couldn’t otherwise support. How to answer the charge that he and Obama voted for a budget resolution that called for taxing Americans making $42,000? Assert that John McCain voted for it too, although he didn’t. How to argue that we’re paying no attention to Afghanistan? Claim repeatedly that we spend more in Iraq in three weeks than we have spent in Afghanistan in seven years, although that’s very far from true. How to explain his vote for the Iraq war in light of his subsequent views? Say it wasn’t a war resolution, though it was. And on and on Joe went.

Biden misrepresented McCain's views on deregulating the banking and health care industry. The Washington Post says Biden's claim that McCain's healthcare plan would result in the middle class paying more for health insurance and in taxes was a "fabrication." Part of McCain's plan is to allow you to buy insurance from out of state (currently illegal). This is what Biden calls "deregulation." McCain's plan would make health care more affordable, give you more control, and make it portable if you switch jobs.

Biden claimed that McCain has special tax cuts planned for oil companies. This is untrue. McCain wants to lower corporate tax rates for all corporations, not just oil companies. And who does Biden think pays corporate taxes? They are passed down to us through higher prices.

The Leftist and the Moderate

Obama is working hard to paint McCain as Bush II. This is laughable as everyone knows that McCain is a moderate Republican who has gone against his party more times than I can count. If he is Bush II, then why did John Kerry ask him to be his running mate and why did Joe Biden say he would be honored to be McCain's running mate and that the country would be better off with McCain as president? The fact is, McCain is the most moderate presidential nominee in a long time.

If McCain's moderate voting record makes him Bush II, then what does Obama's voting record make him? The National Journal ranked him the most liberal senator in Washington for 2007, based on 99 key Senate votes. Joe Biden was ranked third. Get this: Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), the first admitted socialist to be elected to the Senate, is ranked fifth. Obama talks a good game, but he is far, far to the left of the average American.

McCain/Palin's Big Bounce

The Republican Convention and the addition of Governor Palin to the ticket have given McCain a huge boost in the polls. Before the convention, McCain trailed Obama by 7 points. Now, among registered voters, McCain leads 50% to 46% and among likely voters, he leads 56% to 46%. The poll was taken from Friday to Sunday, included 1,022 voters, and has a margin of error of +- 3 points. Historically, convention bounces tend to wither a little, but having a ten point advantage at this point is better than I thought possible.

One of the reasons the Republican convention was so successful because it shattered the narrative of McCain presented by Obama at the Democratic convention and the narrative of Palin presented by the media. Obama told you that McCain is Bush II, but his record clearly shows him to be a maverick reformer. The media and Obama told you Palin was inexperienced, but we found out about her impressive record of battling corruption and oil companies as well as fighting her own party on government waste. Obama now looks even less experienced in comparison, and he's on the top of the ticket.

Other interesting developments:

• Biden told Meet the Press that life begins at conception, but he wouldn't dare impose his "religious" views on other people. Maybe we shouldn't impose our "religious" views about murdering people outside the womb either. At least he doesn't think the issue is "above his pay grade."

• Obama on the surge in Iraq: “I think that there’s no doubt that the violence is down. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated." Go ahead and say it, "I was wrong to oppose the surge, and John McCain was right."

• Obama now says he would delay rescinding Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans if the economy is weak (he didn't mention that we had robust growth of 3.3% last quarter). Is this an admission that raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy?
  

Thoughts on Labor

Seeing how we just celebrated Labor Day, why don't we look at the candidate's views on the number one labor issue going into the election? "The Employee Free Choice Act" passed the House, but couldn't get past the Senate Republicans' filibuster. Obama has promised to sign it into law.

Democrats took a page from Orwell in naming the bill, this "free choice" legislation actually denies workers the right to a secret ballot when considering whether to unionize. Instead, union organizers would be allowed to threaten, bribe, stalk, and otherwise bully workers into supporting the union until they have a majority. Employers would also be required to be "neutral," meaning that they would be prevented from sharing information that might dissuade workers from unionizing and they would have to require workers to sit through pro-union speeches.

No doubt this legislation is bad for employers (and consumers). But isn't it better for workers to retain the right to a secret ballot? Then they can choose what they think is best, without a union thug looking over their shoulder. Unfortunately for Democrats, secret ballots make it harder to unionize. Labor unions have been declining in popularity among workers in the last 20 years. Workers have tired of idiotic work rules and union corruption, as well as the politics. This is troubling for Democrats, who get 96% of the billions that labor unions pour into political campaigns.

John McCain opposes this legislation and sponsored a bill to protect the right to a secret ballot. Just another example of Obama choosing party (and special interests) over country.

The Real Reformers

Sarah Palin is a very good choice as McCain's VP. I am relieved that he didn't pick Lieberman or Ridge, but Palin is a gutsy choice that should appeal to conservatives, Hillary supporters, and independents (anybody else McCain should be targeting?). Palin is wildly popular in Alaska (80-90% approval ratings), she's a fiscal and social conservative who has had no problems taking on her own party in Alaska over issues of wasteful spending and dependence on the federal government. She's pro-life, the youngest of her five children has Downs Syndrome, which is an interesting contrast with Obama's view that Downs babies that survive an abortion don't have human rights. She snowmobiles and hunts moose! She used to be a commercial fisherwoman! What more do you want, blue-collar and Mountain West people?

Palin should fit nicely into a "Reform" message for McCain. They are both mavericks who have taken political risks by bucking their own party to do what they think is best for the country. Obama also claims to be a reformer, although McCain should do more to highlight his record in the state senate and as a US Senator. Obama was 100% lined up with the dirtiest politicians in all the land. He never once crossed anyone in the Chicago Machine. Even when he had the opportunity to support a liberal Democrat, Forrest Claypool, for Cook County Board President, a candidate that pledged to end the cronyism, corruption and extortion, he instead backed Todd Stroger, the son of the previous president. With Obama's support, Stroger won the primary by 7% of the vote. Stroger has wasted no time, he's increased the sales tax to 10.25%, laid off hundreds of nurses, and cut 43 prosecutors, all so he can hire more friends and family to high paying, do-nothing jobs.

Picking Biden brought Obama down a few points in the polls, but he's certain to get a few points following the convention. Palin's a sure thing to give McCain a couple points back. Now the only thing that can possibly hold the McCain/Palin ticket back is the incredible number of sexists in this country.

Biden

I was hoping Obama would choose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. It's the safe choice, probably a mistake considering how much ground McCain has been gaining lately. Biden is thought to be experienced on foreign policy, which shores up a major weakness, but he's not exactly on board with Obama's foreign policy. In the last few years he may have been more supportive of John McCain than Obama, but Obama picked him to be a brawler, and that is what we should expect. However, past comments by Biden could come back to haunt him.

Biden on Obama

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

"Having talking points on foreign policy doesn't get you there."

“If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to [bring to the] table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake.”

On Obama’s Iraq plan, Sept. 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany. I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

“When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

Biden on Iraq

Meet the Press, 2002, on Saddam: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Meet the Press, 2007, on WMDs: "Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

On Obama's Iraq plan, August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq]. But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference... "[Criticizing Obama and Clinton's efforts to stop funding bills for Iraq] There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Senator McCain

2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off..."

2007: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

Courting the Evangelicals

Rev. Rick Warren talked with McCain and Obama at his church in California on Saturday about issues he thought would be important to evangelicals. I didn't get a chance to see it because I was at the beach, but everything I've read and heard indicates that McCain did quite well. Obama's camp is now alleging that McCain somehow heard the questions in advance and that accounted for the difference, although that doesn't seem to be true.

Highlights (thanks NR online):

When asked, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama cited his decision to oppose the Iraq war. That is like me saying the most difficult decision of my life was to support the Iraq war. Obama was not in the Senate at the time this decision was being made and had no more influence on the decision that I did.

When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.

They were asked when they “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.” Obama cited working with McCain on campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, Obama worked with McCain only briefly on the issue before jumping back in the Democratic camp, prompting an angry letter from McCain asserting that Obama had done exactly the opposite of what Warren's question was about. The fact is, Obama doesn't have any examples because he's never gone against party loyalty.

When McCain got the question, everyone in the room thought he would bring up campaign-finance reform, the issue on which he has alienated the Republican base for years. But he didn’t. 'Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture,' he said. 'The list goes on.' McCain’s prime example, though, was his story of opposing Ronald Reagan’s decision to send a contingent of Marines to Lebanon as a peacekeeping force. 'My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission, and I thought they were going into harm’s way,' McCain said. But he deeply admired Reagan, and wanted to be loyal to the party; it was a difficult decision.

“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Obama: “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Um, er, please don't make me answer this question. As I discussed last week, Obama doesn't even believe all babies that are already born have human rights.

McCain: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.”

Perhaps the low moment for Obama was when he was asked, “which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?” Obama said, “I don’t think he was an exp . . . ” — he then caught himself — “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.” He went on to say that, while he opposed their views on the Constitution, he had no such reservations about the intelligence of the white conservatives on the bench. From the WSJ:

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a 'community organizer' and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

This is all promising, let's just hope McCain doesn't blow it by picking an unacceptable VP.

Good News From Iraq

In addition to the news that US combat fatalities in Iraq dropped to 5 in July, a low for the war, the Wall Street Journal reports that Muqtada Al-Sadr is disarming his army. The Mahdi Army led by the Shiite cleric has long been a difficult enemy of US troops and peace loving Iraqis and has controlled significant space in Baghdad. Reportedly, they will shift their focus to "education, religion and social justice" and won't even carry weapons.

WSJ credits crackdowns on the Mahdi militias and a loss of popular support for the group due to their use of violence. Together with a near-total defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, if the Mahdi Army does disarm, there would not be any significant organized enemy of the US left in Iraq.

What a difference a year makes. The "surge" (opposed by Obama, favored by McCain in case you've forgotten) has been an unqualified success. Imagine how different life would be for the Iraqi people if our troops has left when Obama and the Democrats were demanding that we cut and run (it seems that their lives aren't even bad enough to report on if you ask the media). There will always be disagreement on whether or not we should have gone to war in the first place. However, looking back on the success of the surge, McCain's foreign policy experience certainly trumped Obama's lack of any experience.

Obama and McCain on Energy

With $4 gasoline, energy policy is shaping up to be a key issue in the presidential campaign. The differences between Obama and McCain could hardly be greater.

McCain favors addressing our oil supply by increasing environmentally responsible domestic off shore drilling and by reducing the red tape that has kept anyone from building a new refinery here in the last 30 years. McCain also wants to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and yesterday he announced his plan for a $300 million prize for developing advanced battery technology.

Obama repeats the Democratic mantra "we can't drill our way out of this." I guess we should just stop drilling then. Would 75 billion barrels of our own oil in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf end all our energy problems? Of course not, but increased supply will lower prices. ANWR alone could supply the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. Obama promises to side with the environmental wacko groups and continue to prevent more drilling, refineries, and nuclear power. Obama also continues to support the disastrous policy of providing huge subsidies for corn-based ethanol (can you say special interests?) that have caused food prices to sky rocket. Current food prices are very hard on the world's poor and they are causing the destruction of South America's rain forest to accelerate, as people burn down the forest to plant corn. John McCain opposed our ethanol policy even in Iowa during the primaries, while Obama continues to promote one of our worst energy policies ever. The candidate of "change" refuses to budge from the failed policies of the past.

The main difference between the two candidates' approaches is that one is based on promoting economic growth, while the other is focused on depressing demand for energy. Liberals like high energy prices because they lower demand for energy. Energy utilization, whether it's using coal, nuclear, or fossil fuels, is their enemy. However, we need energy to run our economy, the cheaper the better. Wind, solar, and ethanol are not competitive with other sources of energy. Therefore, they require government subsidies (our tax dollars) to even exist. Using inefficient energy sources slows our economy by making energy more expensive that it needs to be.

If energy is scarce, big government types will argue for greater government intervention to provide "equitable" distribution of energy. For example, last week House Democrats argued for nationalizing the nation's oil refineries.

John McCain's positions are well to the left of what I believe is best for America. His cap and trade proposals will not help our energy problems and although he supports more off shore drilling, he has yet to call for drilling in ANWR. However, he has some good ideas and Obama's commitment to ethanol and environmental special interests (as well as a knee-jerk liberalism) stand in the way of reasonable energy policies.

McCain's VP

Conan O'Brien: "John McCain invited Louisiana's governor, Florida's governor and Mitt Romney to a barbecue at his home in Arizona because he wants to choose one of them to be his running mate. McCain says he got the idea to choose his running mate this way by watching 'Flavor of Love.'"

I'm guessing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is still in the mix as well, but he has a wedding to attend this weekend. So we have a 50/50 chance of getting a conservative on the ticket. Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist are McCain Republicans while Romney and Bobby Jindal have good full-spectrum conservative credentials. Jindal is generating a lot of excitement, but is only 36 and is serving his first term as Louisiana Gov. Having a young, energetic minority on the ticket could counter Obama and it's not like the Obama camp can challenge him on lack of experience. However, I think Romney is the best choice (I'm sure you're all shocked). Romney's business experience will play well as the economy becomes one of the top issues in the campaign. It's possible that McCain will only serve one term, so his VP would be set up nicely for 2012. Hopefully McCain will reject the centrist Republicans and finally reach out to the base by giving a rose to Romney or Jindal.

George Will Grills McCain

Well, in his Newsweek column anyway, asking several tough questions of the Republican nominee. Highlights:

You vow to nominate judges who "take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives." Their sole responsibility? Do you oppose judicial review that invalidates laws that pure-hearted representatives of the saintly people have enacted that happen to violate the Constitution? Does your dogmatic deference to popular sovereignty put you at odds with the first Republican president, who nobly insisted that there are some things the majority should not be permitted to do—hence his opposition to allowing popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in the territories? Do you also reject Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that the Constitution's purpose is "to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away"? Does this explain your enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold's restrictions on political speech, and your dismissive reference to, "quote, First Amendment rights"? Would you nominate judges who, because they think those are more than "quote … rights," doubt McCain-Feingold's constitutionality?

You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

You propose a "cap and trade" system to limit the carbon dioxide that many companies can emit. Is not your idea an energy- rationing proposal akin to Bill Clinton's BTU tax?

McCain's cap and trade global warming program will dramatically increase taxes and cause energy prices to rise even higher without having any meaningful effect on the temperature of our planet. While his judicial nominees would be head and shoulders better than Obama's (they might actually care what the Constitution says and probably wouldn't find the right to abortion in it) I am concerned about the philosophy of anyone who supports McCain-Feingold - one of the greatest attacks on free speech our nation has seen.

Pandering

Obama has now accused McCain and Clinton of pandering to the car-driving public by supporting a cut in the federal gas taxes. Ha! This from the politician who blames oil companies for high gas prices, blames free trade agreements for our economic problems, and supports a church that blames whites for all the problems of black America. Cutting taxes is not pandering, Senator Obama. It's our money, not yours. Promising to tax some people more so you can redistribute their money to others in order to get their votes might fit within the definition, though.

In her response, Senator Clinton did a little pandering of her own: "I want the Congress to stand up and vote. Are they for the oil companies, or are they for you?"

Liberals should stop promoting the fallacy that private companies who provide products we want at prices we're willing to pay are oppressing us. Profits are not evil, they are the portion of your voluntary transaction that pays for the investment someone made to bring you a product you want. Taking away profits reduces investment. If you want less of something, tax it more. Using government to interfere (more than absolutely necessary) in the free market and hampering the oil companies' ability to bring us gasoline doesn't just hurt the oil companies, it hurts the consumer as well (this goes for big business of all kinds). Everyone loses, except for the Democrats who get elected.

Obama Flexes His Economic Muscles

In the face of rising gas prices Obama has gone into knee-jerk liberal mode and is calling for a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies. Obama would dramatically increase the taxes on oil companies when the price of oil exceeds $80 a barrel (oil prices will probably be above $80 a barrel for the foreseeable future). Jimmy Carter tried this and it failed miserably.

Oil is a commodity that is produced around the world (where liberals haven't prevented drilling and the building of refineries) and is sold at market rates. That market rate is determined by the supply of oil and the demand for that oil. World-wide demand for oil (especially from developing countries) has dramatically increased over the last decade and the dollar has declined in value, driving the price sky high. Increasing taxes on the oil companies will reduce their incentive to bring more oil to market, driving prices even higher. Oil companies make a lot of money when the price of oil goes up because their stock pile becomes more valuable. However, they do not set the prices. ExxonMobil, although it is a huge company, is only the 14th largest oil company in the world. They can't set the price for oil any more than a big dairy farmer (that's for you, Polinders) can set the price for milk. OPEC, on the other hand, is a cartel that can and does influence the price of oil by agreeing on how much oil to produce.

Oil company profits cost you about 9 cents a gallon. Taxes (federal, state, local) cost you around 40-50 cents a gallon (who is gouging who?). Obama thinks this isn't nearly enough. He disguises a big tax hike by pretending he's just getting even with the evil oil companies. Who do you think will pay for the tax increase? The oil companies will pass it on the consumer by charging more for gas. McCain is calling for a reduction in the federal gas tax for the summer (it would be nice if he also favored drilling in ANWR). This would actually lower the price you pay at the pump, but Obama opposes it because, well, because it's a tax decrease instead of an increase.

Ah, the classic liberal vs. conservative debate: more government or less?