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 »)

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 »)

Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial. Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here’s how Mr. Brown first frames his question:

After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Two paragraphs later, here’s how he continues his argument:

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.

Politics or Presentation?

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills. (continue reading post »)

Powerline’s John Hinderaker has an interesting post up about June presidential polls and how accurate they are compared with election results. John makes this observation:

In other words, the June polls have come closer to predicting the actual result in every recent Presidential cycle.

This may be because improved polling techniques are giving a better read on the electorate, earlier. You could test this theory by checking later poll averages against actual results; I haven’t tried to do that. Another possibility is that our politics have become increasingly polarized, so that fewer voters change their minds over the course of a campaign. Either way, recent history suggests that we Republicans shouldn’t take too much comfort from the memory of Michael Dukakis.

John’s point about Republicans not taking comfort in June polling is worthwhile. My question is whether this year is an anomaly because of the volatility caused by high gas prices.

John’s point that we’ve become a more polarized nation isn’t arguable. That’s certainly happened. That said, I’ve often thought that the energy issue is one of those rare instances that a single issue moves people from the blue column into the red column. It’s an issue that’s changing turnout, too. (continue reading post »)

I’ve long thought that Michael Barone is one of the most intelligent political analysts in the business. RealClearPolitics links to his most recent analysis. The bad news for Democrats is that it contains alot of good news for Republicans, namely Barone’s listing of how the facts have changed the direction of this race. Here’s how Mr. Barone starts with Iraq:

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress, all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.

Facts matter except with Democratic activists. Once you enter the Democratic activists’ world, though, anything that highlights inaccuracies in Democratic stump speeches is ignored and frequently chastized.

The bad news for Democrats is that the presidential race won’t be won by Democrat activists. It will be decided by people that are open to hearing about improvements in Iraq.

Here’s another of Michael Barone’s observations: (continue reading post »)

I’ve enjoyed myself this week as Democrats try applying the flip-flop tag on Sen. McCain for changing his mind of drilling on the OCS. Now they’re attempting to apply that tag to Florida Governor Charlie Crist:

This week, Crist stunned many when he said he is now open to the idea of expanding oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a reversal that’s in step with McCain. Crist said Friday that he is not running for vice president and his recent comments weren’t made to mirror the Arizona senator’s.

“It’s born out of a concern for the people of Florida and their pocketbook. I hear it all the time, that $4 a gallon gasoline is hurting families,” Crist said, emphasizing that he only supports a study on expanded drilling.

Critics say it’s the most striking example of Crist’s positions shifting to meet McCain’s.

I’d bet that people won’t care about the flip-flop as long as it drives gas prices down. To continue doing what we’ve been doing will keep crude oil prices excalating. As I pointed out here, the only smart energy policy is one that increases energy supply:

“Good energy policy is easy to distinguish from bad energy policy: Good policy leads to more supplies of affordable energy and bad policy leads to less.”

Let’s face facts. People know that politicians change their minds all the time. That’s factored into their opinions of politicians. That means, they’ll likely appreciate it when politicians flip-flop into the right policy.

Let’s put it another way. What’s more likely to happen of these scenarios?

Will a person appreciate gas prices dropping as a result of a policy change? Or will the person say something like this: I don’t care that gas prices have dropped. I don’t care that I’ve got more cash in my wallet. I can’t trust that guy and that’s all that matters.

I’m betting that the vast majority of people will thank politicians for policies that drop gas prices.

Technorati Tags: Charlie Crist, Flip-Flop, Oil Exploration, John McCain, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

I just finished participating in a blogger conference call on energy policy. The conference call was hosted by Rep. Michele Bachmann and was attended by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Rep. Tom Price, and Rep. Adam Putnam. Here’s a brief summary of what each of these representatives said in their opening statements:

Marsha Blackburn: What we are faced with is a classic supply-demand situation, windfall profits tax didn’t work. Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling, saying that it’d be “10 years before we see any production.”
Adam Putnam: “These are our solutions” “We’re committed to an all of the above approach” on energy.
Tom Price: High gas price is #1 issue in northern Atlanta. “We need to incentive conservation.” “We need to increase oil production.” “I’m sure that Speaker Pelosi’s constituents aren’t interested in paying $4.68 a gallon.”
Phil Gingrey: DOD will see a $9 billion increase in fuel expense.” They installed a provision in the DOD bill that mandated the buying certain type of crude oil, essentially eliminating Canadian oil & shale oil.
Eric Cantor: “We’re opening up democracy” by including bloggers, who are driving this conversation. Speculative markets are looking at how we’re dealing with supply. Currently, that’s driving prices up. “Barack Obama recently said that” the only problem with $4 gas is that it went up too fast.

Several representatives spoke to the differences between McCain and Obama, which I thought was fair game. My representative, Michele Bachmann, is collecting gas receipts and will deliver them to Speaker Pelosi’s door, telling her that real people are hurting because of high gas prices. Michele also talked about the Cap and Tax Bill that got defeated in the Senate. Her nickname for the bill was the Cap and Spend bill, which I thought was appropriate, too. (I still prefer my nickname better, though.) (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 »)

The five liberal idiots on the Supreme Court just gave Gitmo detainees the right to challenge their being held as enemy combatants in US courts. This is why elections matter. This is why busting our hump to win back control of the Senate while maintaining control of the White House is imperative for Republicans.

People have groused about McCain being a maverick. They’ve also said that Norm Coleman has gone green too often for their likings. To some, that’s the only reason they need for not busting their hump in getting these men elected. While I agree that both gentlemen have given us hearturn with some of their policy positions, it’s instances like this that sharpen our focus on what the most important things in life are.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

This isn’t a ruling based on the Constitution. It’s essentially a policy decree from the third legislative branch of government. (continue reading post »)

Harry Reid, John Murtha and other anti-war fools might soon be dining on second and third helpings of crow if this NY Post article is right. Here’s what they’re reporting:

The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army, just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists, forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation’s army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country’s leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul, a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

(continue reading post »)