Barack Obama is still attempting to paint John McCain as a Bush flunkie. He’s still trying to say that a McCain-Palin administration is Bush’s third term. Here’s his latest video making that silly accusation:

Here’s another video making essentially the same claim:

Nothing says change like someone that’s got a record of taking on corruption in your own political party. For all of Sen. Obama’s bluster that he’s the candidate of change, he’s sorely lacking in accomplishments. (continue reading post »)

The Washington Times has published FactCheck.org’s analysis of the things Democrats have said about John McCain. Here’s their analysis:

Some examples of who said what and what they left out:

SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: “John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That’s not a maverick. That’s a sidekick.”

PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: “And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain.”

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn’t always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush’s position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. (continue reading post »)

Contrary to E.J. Dionne’s opinion, I don’t think Sen. Obama’s troubles die out when August expires. In fact, I expect them to continue.

Like baseball players, political people are superstitious. In the Democratic imagination, August is the month when Republican presidential candidates destroy their opponents with clever, underhanded attacks that meet with ineffectual responses. Democrats are now petrified that if John Kerry was Swift-boated in August 2004, Barack Obama was Paris-Hiltoned this summer, and there will be no coming back.

Never mind that this analysis is based on the experience of exactly one election. Superstitions are not necessarily rational. This time, Democrats decided that as a political matter, they would end August early by holding their convention and unveiling a running mate during the month of the jinx.

(continue reading post »)

Susan Rice is one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers. She might also be Karl Rove’s implant in the Obama campaign. Every time she ‘defends’ Sen. Obama’s foreign policy record, she causes more harm than good. Every time she critiques Sen. McCain’s foreign policy acumen, she highlights McCain’s expertise. Such is the case here:

Coinciding with a new poll suggesting McCain has overhauled Obama among voters nationally, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice portrayed the Republican as a hot-head who could not be trusted to stay cool under fire.

McCain’s “tendency is to shoot first and to ask questions later,” she said on a conference call alongside former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who called the Republican “trigger-happy” and “reckless.”

McCain, according to Rice, “cheer-led (President George W.) Bush’s decision to take our eye off the ball and start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11.”

“This is a record that belies anything approaching sound judgment,” she said.

Ms. Rice obviously wants us to ignore that Sen. McCain was right in his first statement about Putin’s invasion of Georgia. Ms. Rice also wants us to ignore Sen. McCain’s being right about the surge. (continue reading post »)

If the network news wasn’t as awful as it is, Jack Cafferty would be THE laughinstock of the news industry. As it is, he’s just ONE of the laughingstocks. Imagine my surprise when I read Cafferty’s article claiming that John McCain is intellectually shallow:

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.

I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn’t bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. “It means I’m saved and forgiven.” Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we’ve all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand. (continue reading post »)

Nancy Pelosi’s statement to Larry King that she’d consider drilling if it’s part of a bigger package (TRANSLATION: tax increases and government picking winners and losers) is a cruel hoax. Ms. Pelosi’s use of the Democrats’ Weekly Radio Address was a similar hoax.

It’s time that Republicans rallied around the American Energy Act. This upcoming week, Republicans everywhere should talk about the virtues of the American Energy Act. Whether it’s rebel legislators in Washington, bloggers across the nation or the NRCC running wall-to-wall ads on national TV, they should be touting the substantial legislation put together by House Republicans.

I’ve touted the AEA numerous times. Now it’s time that the NRCC capitalized. This is solid legislation that Americans would flock to if they knew about it. The fastest way to guarantee Americans finding out about the AEA’s provisions is for Pesident Bush and Sen. McCain to make a visit to Capitol Hill to hold a joint news conference touting the AEA.

Republicans should have graphics made to highlight the bill’s balanced approach to energy reform:

To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:

• Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three
  million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
• Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million
  barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK); (continue reading post »)

Until now, I’ve tried focusing on what Republicans should do to press the energy fight to Democrats. I’ve focused on deficiencies in the House Democrats’ plans. It’s time to turn our attention to the Gang of 10 disaster that Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, Johnny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss and John Thune signed onto. A contact of mine on Capital Hill sent me an outline of the Gang of 10’s bill. Let’s go through that outline. Here’s the part that bothers me the most:

Rather than using revenues from increased oil and gas production to fund competitive research into alternative fuels as proposed by House Republicans, the Gang of Ten proposal includes what the Wall Street Journal calls “a Democratic giveaway” that is funded by $84 billion in tax increases.

Why on God’s green earth would a Republican agree to these tax increases? Graham, Corker, Isakson, Chambliss and Thune couldn’t have been thinking when they signed onto this. God help us if they were.

Here’s another disastrous portion of the bill: (continue reading post »)

It’s becoming obvious that Democrats are getting hit hard on the energy issue. It’s becoming equally obvious that Republicans are stepping up the pressure on Ms. Pelosi. This WSJ article highlights how Republicans are attacking the issue.

In her attempt to outmaneuver Republicans, Ms. Pelosi may be using some of the same tools that Mr. Reid used in the recent Senate energy bill debate. Before the August recess, the majority leader offered the Republicans a vote on drilling, but conditioned it on Republican support for renewable energy tax credits, and the chamber failed to pass any energy legislation. Neither side appears to want to actually reach a compromise, but are simply using energy as an election-year bat with which to beat their opponents.

“Raising taxes will ultimately hurt consumers by forcing them to pay even higher gas prices, and Republicans will oppose them,” Kevin Smith, spokesman for House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said in an email.

Mr. Smith said Ms. Pelosi’s plan was “largely more of the same failed proposals they’ve been trotting out for months,” and is “designed to give political cover to vulnerable Democrats who are losing ground,” he said.

I said here that tax increases of any sort should be immediately rejected. Much to my delight, they’ve been rejected faster than I’d expected. Here’s what President Bush said: (continue reading post »)

When the energy debate got intense, Speaker Pelosi spoke for the Democrats, calling drilling a hoax on the American people. Just three days ago, when the American people told pollsters in strong majorities that they favored drilling, Democrat Pelosi told Larry King that she’s open to voting on drilling…sorta. It’s a different day and a different tweak of her policy:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday firmly rejected the idea of a House vote solely on the issue of offshore oil drilling, calling it “a hoax on the American people” backed by oil companies.

Instead, she said, she wants Congress to tackle a compromise comprehensive energy plan that would include alternative energy sources and curtailing tax breaks for oil companies.

“You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources,” the San Francisco Democrat said in an interview for KQED television’s weekly news show, “This Week in Northern California.” “We want to connect all that together.”

Let’s first stipulate that Democrats aren’t dealing from a position of strength here. They’ve seen the polling. They’ve seen that the majority of independents and conservatives favor drilling. They’ve seen the polling that shows almost 60 percent of the people said that they’d vote for someone who is pro-drilling instead of those that don’t favor drilling. (continue reading post »)

President Bush took some justified criticism for not laying down the law sooner with regards to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Yesterday, he upped the ante by announcing SecDef Gates’ putting together humanitarian relief missions to Georgia. He also said that he was sending Condi Rice to Georgia after first stopping in France to meet with President Sarkozy. This morning, he recommitted the United States to the other countries bordering Russia and to the existing Georgian administration:

US President George W. Bush assured leaders of Ukraine and Lithuania on Thursday that he remains fully committed to “a sovereign, free Georgia and its territorial integrity,” the White House said.

In his conversations with Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, Bush stressed US “solidarity” with Georgia in its conflict with Russia, according to spokeswoman Dana Perino.

“All the leaders stressed the importance of standing by a sovereign, free Georgia and its territorial integrity, and agreed on the need for Russia to stop the violence, abide by the ceasefire and withdraw its forces,” she said.

This is a classic case of better late than never. This is a rarity; President Bush was very sure-footed almost from the get-go after the terrorist attacks. I was surprised that it took him this long to face down Putin’s totalitarian ambitions and his brutal attack of a fledgling democracy. The President Bush of 2004 would’ve been critical of this almost instantly. (continue reading post »)