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 »)

This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren’t the least bit serious. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:

Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.

Yesterday’s proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the “internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq.”

Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can’t focus on killing al-Qa’ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won’t take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can’t involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.

While it’s true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it’s equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa’ida’s terrorists and the last of Sadr’s militias.

Here’s what Rep. McGovern sees happening:

The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely. (continue reading post »)

The message behind Kevin Rennie’s column is simple, concise and unmistakeable: Sen. Dodd, it’s time to come clean because we’re not going away. It’s a message taht Sen. Dodd doesn’t want to hear but it’s a message that we won’t let him ignore.

‘I would never take ‘trust me’ for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.” So declared Sen. Christopher J. Dodd last week on the floor of the U.S. Senate during a debate on government surveillance.

Dodd declared he will not trust our leaders unless he gets to see certain national security documents. Dodd insists, however, that we trust him when he says he didn’t know he received special treatment when he borrowed nearly $800,000 from Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2003.

This calls for an FOIA request. If Sen. Dodd won’t voluntarily comply with our request that he produce documentation on what was or wasn’t said in his negotiations with Angelo Mozilo, then we’ll demand his compliance. Sen. Dodd would be wise to remember that summers are when many scandals are exposed. That’s because there’s a lull in the news. If he wants someone digging into his financial affairs, I’m certain someone will be more than willing to do that.

One thing that’s obvious is that Dodd will play this as long as possible. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on: (continue reading post »)

This morning, the SC Times is running an editorial explaining why Rep. Michele Bachmann’s energy plan is wrong for America. The editorial is titled “Letter: Preteen has a better plan than Bachmann”. This is the epitome of despicable. It’s obvious that this preteen had help writing the letter. Here’s what I’m basing my opinion on:

Frankly, the whole act is politically motivated and short-sighted. The federal Energy Information Administration says drilling in Alaska wouldn’t be able to start until 2018 if approved today and that production wouldn’t reach its peak until 2027.

How many 12 year-olds talk about “politically motivated and short-sighted” legislation? Better yet, how many 12-year-olds know about the “federal Energy Information Administration“? Or that drilling in ANWR would take 10 years to start drilling? Or that it’d take another 9 years for it to start producing?

What are the odds that this child’s parents ‘helped’ her research this editorial? North of 95%? A point or 2 south of 100%?

Then there’s this line:

Is ruining Alaska worth about $1.35? I hope not!

Ruining Alaska by drilling on a 2,000 acre plot of land? FYI- 2,000 acres is just a bit more than 3 square miles. ANWR alone is 19,000,000 acres, which translates into 29,687.5 square miles. Alaska is 663,267 square miles. In other words, ANWR is about 4 percent of Alaska’s land mass. (continue reading post »)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent Senate Majority Leader harry Reid a letter harshly criticizing the Do-Nothing Senate for blocking real energy reform, which is hurting American families. It’s a stinging rebuke, one that’s certain to leave a mark. Here’s the paragraph where Gov. Palin first lets loose with the heavy artillery:

What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside the Capitol Beltway that virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy polilcy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daly lives and has begun to affect America’s place in the world.

Over the past 80 days, proposals have been table to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is offlimits to such activity. I strongly support OCS development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the OCS and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR, the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America.

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to gift wrap the bigges issue in this election, all they need to do is nothing. The Democrats’ mantra has been that you can’t drill your way out of this artificial gas crisis. They’re entitled to stick with that mantra but it won’t help them.

The American people are smart enough to know that we can’t alternative and conserve our way out of this crisis. (continue reading post »)

This column by Dick Morris is quite harsh on Sen. Obama. Here’s another Morris observation of Sen. Obama regarding energy:

Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

That’s pretty harsh if you ask me. It’s also accurate in my opinion. If Democrats want to see gas prices drop, then they’ll need to either increase production or do alot more conservation than is happening now. I don’t think the Democrats ‘wear more sweaters plan’ will play well with American voters. Here’s another instance in which Morris nails Democrats hard: (continue reading post »)

After reading the opening paragraph to this article, you’d think that drilling off Florida’s coasts would cost Sen. McCain Florida. I suspect that that’s the intent of the opening. Here’s what Lesley Clark, Mary Ellen Klas and Beth Reinhard wrote in the opening paragraph:

John McCain’s support for offshore drilling could hurt his prospects in the nation’s largest battleground state, where voters have long favored safeguarding the economically and environmentally precious coastline.

The trick is to not dwell too long on the opening paragraph. The trick is to get into the meat of the article. That’s where you’ll find quotes like this:

“There is a certain political danger for McCain,” said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker. But he added, “The question becomes: With gas at $4 a gallon, have people’s minds changed? My best guess is that more people today are willing to support offshore drilling with heavy restrictions than a couple a years ago.”

Everybody and their mothers know that $4 a gallon gas trumps all other considerations at this point. The ecomomy can’t take this much longer. The American people know this. That’s why polling I’ve seen shows a dramatic shift. One poll shows that people feel less hostility towards the big oil companies than before, dropping from 34% to 20%. That same poll shows support for drilling on the OCS at 57% as favoring it to 41% opposing it.

Naturally, Democrats attacked Sen. McCain as a flip-flopper: (continue reading post »)

In 1992, Hillary said something that could’ve derailed her husband’s presidential ambitions. Here’s Hillary’s now-famous quote:

“You know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

What happened after that was the Clinton campaign stuck a proverbial sock in Hillary’s mouth. The next time we heard from her, she was talking about cookie recipes and talking every bit like the stay-at-home-mom she talked down earlier.

Let’s fastforward to this campaign and shift our focus to Michelle Obama. She’s said that “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” She’s told New Yorker Magazine that America is “downright mean”, that we’re “guided by fear.”

The Clinton campaign realized immediately that they had a problem and hid Hillary so she didn’t derail his presidential ambitions. The Obama campaign let Michelle shoot her mouth off. Now she’s attempting a Hillaryesque makeover and the NY Times is assisting: (continue reading post »)

When I read Rep. Maurice Hinchey’s quote, I was stunned. I wasn’t surprised because he’d be ideal as Hugo Chavez’s Oil Minister. Rather, I was stunned that he’d make his thoughts known in public. Here’s Rep. Hinchey’s quote:

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup

We’re going to trust a government bureaucrat to determine the proper flow of oil through refineries? I don’t think so. That’s the dumbest decision we could possibly make.

Predictably, Democrats are putting themselves on the wrong side of this issue. Here’s a sampling of what Democrats said about increased drilling:

I think there aren’t enough votes for the Peterson amendment. It wasn’t taken up (the Interior spending bill) because of the omnibus Appropriations bill. That’s the main focus of the Appropriations Committee. — Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach. — Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Resources Committee

You cannot drill your way out of this. — Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming

The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place. — Markey (continue reading post »)

Following the Supreme Court’s idiotic ruling giving terrorists the same rights as a street criminal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now saying that Gitmo was a blight on the integrity of the United States. Here’s what she said specifically:

“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.

This is typical Democrat thinking on foreign policy. They say these things because they’re more worried about being popular than respected. In fact, they worry more about being popular than being safe. Their go-along-to-get-along attitude isn’t keeping American safe.

What’s keeping America safe is George Bush’s policy of attacking terrorists where they live. President Bush hasn’t given the terrorists any breathing room. As a result, we’ve gone almost 7 years without a terrorist attack. That didn’t happen by accident. Because President Bush had the wisdom to implement this aggressive policy, we’ve been protected. (continue reading post »)