This morning, The Times Editorial Board wrote a defeatist, all is lost editorial about the days of cheap gas being gone. In reading it, I felt the spirit of Jimmy Carter working its way through the editorial. Here’s a portion of the editorial:

Seriously, since those predictions oil prices have consistently set record highs, thanks to (fill in the blank), spurring several reactions from Central Minnesotans.

Among the most encouraging are anecdotes about people changing their gas-based behaviors and especially travel patterns. Indeed, four of five members of this very board fall into that category, with the fifth noting that they didn’t drive much anyway, so yet another price hike/spike induced no big worries.

Similarly, reports nationwide show everything from less travel being planned for this holiday weekend to Americans buying almost 3 percent less gas last week than they did at the same time a year ago. But there also is a different reaction, one which while understandable, seems to signal a reluctance to acknowledge the long-term realities about oil and gas amid supply and demand.

Imagine that. People are reluctant in believing that the days of cheap gas is over. This editorial is just a rewording of Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise Speech.” Remember this paragraph from the speech? (continue reading post »)

The LA Times has posted an article titled “A Short But Sweet Gathering”, referring to the Democrats’ National Convention. Here’s what Doyle McManus writes:

Barack Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee are toying with a convention scheduling change that has been broached before in theory but never seriously considered: cutting the party’s conclave in Denver short by one day to give Obama an extra day of post-nomination bounce in the crowded August calendar.

For the last several decades, when conventions became forums that merely rubber-stamp a presumptive nominee, they have traditionally run from Monday through Thursday. Increasingly, both parties have struggled to offer something of interest during the first couple of convention nights, and the television networks have responded by dramatically reducing live coverage. The only truly significant event has been the nominee’s acceptance speech, delivered during prime time on Thursday evening.

But Obama aides have floated the idea of ending the Denver convention on Wednesday, Aug. 27, instead of Thursday, Aug. 28. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, Rush confirmed that Clear Channel had signed him through 2016. Now Vanity Fair contributing editor Michael Wolff says that it was a bad decision by Clear Channel. Here’s one of his quotes:

“I think it’s a monster error,” Wolff said. “I know, I’m sitting here saying, ‘What are these people smoking?’ You know, the truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been, he’s ridden the rise of conservatism for 25 years and I don’t, maybe nobody quite, quite has been following the news, but that’s coming to an end.”

First off, Rush hasn’t “ridden the rise of conservatism.” Instead, it’s accurate to say that he’s been the rise of conservatism. Here’s another Wolff quote worth ridiculing:

“It’s going to be over and Rush Limbaugh in a relatively short period of time is going to look like a really kind of out-of-it kind of oddity,” Wolff said. “And I can not for the life of me imagine how someone could have made this deal.”

Men of Rush Limbaugh’s talent and intelligence don’t become oddities, whether it’s in a “short period of time” or otherwise. Rush Limbaugh will leave on his terms at the time of his choosing. (continue reading post »)

This Jennifer Rubin article in the J-Post explains why Jewish Americans still don’t trust Sen. Obama. The great thing about this article is that it provides a historical perspective on American presidents; devotion to Israel, then uses that historical perspective to explain why Jewish voters will be hesitant to vote for Sen. Obama:

Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat’s willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon’s staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don’t antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.

Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: “Tell them to send everything that can fly.” Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.

Nixon left no doubt about whether he’d stand with Israel when things were at their most dangerous point. “Tell them to send everything that can fly” is a great way to let the bureaucrats know who set American foreign policy. It was something that Meir appreciated greatly. (continue reading post »)

The thought of the AP downplaying improvements in Iraq isn’t news. It’s noteworthy, though, to see how they report the good news from Iraq. Here’s how Anne Flaherty described the progress:

No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”, almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks, enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues—are unsatisfactory.

I’d love to ask Ms. Flaherty a few questions. Here’s a few right off the top of my head: (continue reading post »)

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Trudy Rubin says that Iraqis feel a ray of hope about their future. I don’t doubt that they’re feeling more optimistic but saying that it’s only a ray of hope seems understated. Rubin says that whenever she wants to know how things are really going, he calls his friend Abbas. Here’s how she describes their latest conversation:

Yet, in three recent phone conversations, he sounded more hopeful about Iraq’s future than I’d heard him in a long time. Why hopeful? Because he finally sees some order returning to Baghdad. The Mahdi Army, the militia of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has been expelled from his neighborhood. “The Iraqi people are waking up from the Mahdi Army,” he told me. “Iraqis know now that they are criminals.”

I’m glad that Ms. Rubin recognizes the improvement in Iraq. According to Ms. Rubin’s bio, she’s travelled extensively to the Middle East, including 9 times to Iraq. This isn’t, as near as I can tell, some wet-behind-the-ears leftist ideologue. It sounds like she’s serious about her work.

My difficulties start when I try reconciling Ms. Rubin’s account with Col. Peters’ account, which I wrote about here: (continue reading post »)

Captain Ed has a great post up skewering Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for their declaring last 4th of July Energy Independence Day. As Captain Ed notes, the Democrats’ new direction is the wrong direction. Here’s a video showing Ms. Pelosi’s bold declarations:

During her criticism of the Bush administration’s inaction, Ms. Pelosi said that Democrats would send money to “the Midwest, not the Middle East.” While it’s true that more subsidies are heading to the Midwest, they’ve failed in their goal of energy independence. In fact, they’ve taken us in another wrong direction, forcing us to import more foreign oil than ever before.

Here’s something Ed said that’s worth noting:

What Pelosi failed to mention was that gas prices at the pump were $2.24 per gallon in January of that year, and that under Democratic leadership, prices went up over 30%.

Think about that. When Pelosi’s Democrats took over, people were paying $2.24 a gallon at the pump. Eighteen months later, it’s over $4 a gallon. The next question to ask is what’s changed since Pelosi took control. For starters, they’ve made the prospect of making more known oil reserves available for exploration and production. Knowing that energy supplies won’t be increased in any meaningful way, speculators wonder how high the price is going to go.

As I said here, there was a daily 9 million barrel cushion between America’s needs and available supply when oil sold for $10-15 per barrel. That cushion is now 1.5 million barrels per day. A bit of sabre-rattling from Ahmadinejad or Chavez, a hurricane in the gulf or any number of other things can cause oil production to lag, thereby erasing whatever cushion existed.

As I said here, this is a crisis created by the Democrats’ decisions. They’ve wanted this crisis so that more people would jump on the conservation/alternative bandwagon, which has happened. What’s been proven, though, is that their policy won’t supply America’s needs. (continue reading post »)

In 1995, Bill Clinton had the opportunity to sign a bill that would’ve allowed drilling on ANWR’s Coastal Plain. He vetoed the bill, creating the mantra of not ruining the “pristine wilderness’ found in ANWR. Among other things, Bill Clinton took other oil-laden federal lands offlimits via executive order. The simple truth is that this is a well-planned ‘crisis’ of choice. We all remember Obama’s saying that $4 a gallon gas wasn’t too expensive; it’s just that it reached that price faster than he would’ve liked.

This ‘crisis’ was completely avoidable. Democrats chose this crisis because they supported policies that put huge known oil reserves offlimits.

During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry promised that he’d filibuster any bill that permitted drilling in ANWR. That’s been the Democrats’ position for at least a decade.

Which leads us to today’s high gas prices. Clinton could claim, feebly in my opinion, that ‘ruining’ ANSWR’s pristine wilderness wasn’t worth it when oil was being traded at $10 a barrel. Since oil isn’t being sold at $10 a barrel anymore, doesn’t it seem wise to change policy? I posted a quote from John Maynard Keynes in this post:

When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

The Democrats have given us their answer. Unfortunately, they aren’t as smart as Mr. Keynes. The facts changed, Democrats didn’t.

BTW, that pristine wilderness that Bill Clinton and Democrats after him don’t want destroyed isn’t as pristine as they’d have us believe. Certainly, we’ve seen pictures like this: (continue reading post »)

I just read the stunning statement that Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) made with regard to John McCain’s qualifications as commander-in-chief. Here’s a transcript of Gen. Clark’s idiotic statement:

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?’

After a moment of stunned silence, here’s how Bob Schieffer responded:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean…

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really? (continue reading post »)

According to Peter Brown, the director of Quinippiac’s polling, history shows that Democrats have long had trouble with white voters. He makes his case in this WSJ op-ed.

For those voters, especially ones without college degrees, the fact that Sen. Obama is black may not be as much a disqualifier as his background as a Democrat from the Frost Belt with no national security or executive experience and a voting record judged by the nonpartisan National Journal as the Senate’s most liberal during 2007.

Yet, the focus on Sen. Obama’s relative weakness among the white working class has become the hot topic among many who say racial bias explains it. Of course it would be naive to believe that race is not a factor in America today. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Mr. Obama’s relative weakness among white voters is solely, or even mainly, due to the fact that he is black and that three quarters of voters this year will be white.

Why would anyone think that policies matter? Obama’s troubles with white working class voters has far more to do with the fact that he’s the most underqualified major party candidate in my voting lifetime. OLet’s not forget that white working class voters haven’t forgotten (or forgiven) Obama for his SF fundraising speech, either. (continue reading post »)