Environmentalists Are Funny

Penn & Teller go to an environmental rally to see if they can get some leftists to sign a petition to ban a dangerous chemical known as Di-hydrogen Monoxide (that's H20, or water, to those of us who went to high school). Hilarity ensues.

You Know, We Will Eventually Run Out of Money...

Another bailout is on the horizon. This time, we the people will be expected to foot the bill for the so-called "Big Three" automakers - Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

Frankly, I am so sick of these bailouts that I don't feel that it is necessary to take the time to outline all the reasons why these companies are in trouble (a perfect storm of failing to invest in a product that can compete and ruinous union contracts) and why the taxpayers should not be required to pay to keep them afloat.

Government bailouts for struggling companies are a recipe for economic disaster. Please contact your Representatives and encourage them to oppose the automaker bailout by clicking here.

A Conservative Without A Home

NOTE: The following post has been in the works for the past couple months as I have taken time to evaluate not only my own beliefs, but also where we stand as a nation. Over the past few days I have heard a wide range of reactions to the election of Sen. Obama. Some are jubilant, while others are angry and despondent. Personally, I allowed myself one day to "grieve" over the results, and then resolved to move forward. While we, as a conservative movement, may have lost the election, we have not lost our voice. The conservative movement must find itself once again and get back to the principles that we know will change this country for the better.

Over the past few years, I have begun to evaluate some of my long-standing political beliefs. A majority of this evaluation has come over the past year as I have had the opportunity to get more “hands-on” experience with policy-making. Although I still predominantly vote Republican, I find myself more disconnected with the hard “party-line” than in years past. As I have struggled with my evolving political identity, I have had the opportunity to have deep discussions of political philosophy with intelligent people of many different ideologies from mainstream conservatives to liberals, to libertarians, and even a “Christian anarchist” (a mixture of Christian theology with anarchist political philosophy that I still don’t quite understand).

Recently, a close friend and I were having a conversation about this subject and I mentioned to her that I often feel like a conservative without a home. I, like many other young conservatives, came to the party as a result of our upbringing and, as we were better able to understand the issues and develop our own opinions, a belief in free markets and limited government. For years, the Republican Party was the standard bearer for this philosophy under the leadership of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. However, as we have grown and become more engaged in the world, we have noticed that the party has substantially drifted from its roots. We now have a Republican Party that outspends than the Democrats and is increasingly aligned with evangelical “social conservatives” – a formula that yields anything but a commitment to free markets and limited government. Since the Republican Party continues to claim that it stands for these principles (indeed, many members of the party still do), it seems necessary to outline my understanding of them in order to better illustrate why I feel like a “conservative without a home.”

Free market conservatism is one area where I feel that the Republican Party has not drifted too far and stands a chance of rediscovering its principles. The best and most concise way that I have heard this principle explained is in the axiom, “the freer the markets, the freer the people.” As a free market conservative, I believe that there should be minimal government intervention in the economy. Anything beyond basic regulations to ensure the safety of consumers and prevent abuses of the market, I believe is beyond the scope of the government’s Constitutional authority. Now, I do not have any illusions that we will be able to reverse the effects of the New Deal and other government interventions that have essentially become entrenched into societal expectations. I do hold out hope, however, that we can scale back the scope of government intervention that has grown out of control in recent years. This out of control intervention is best illustrated by the massive and irresponsible transfers of wealth made through the Congressional practice of earmarking. Under this system, members of Congress are able to allocate funding for “pet projects” back in their home states with little to no oversight. Often, these earmarks have nothing to do with the overall goal of the bill that they are being attached to, and, I would argue, are an abuse (if not an outright violation) of Congress’ Constitutional authority to make the law. Government intervention, however, has not been confined to the area of funding abuses; it extends to nearly every aspect of the economy from taxes to over-regulation of the private sector. The laws of economics suggest that the best way to promote freedom and prosperity is to cut taxes to individuals and business and by scaling back regulations that have increased the cost of doing business. The Republican Party, to its credit, has remained true to the principle of cutting taxes. However, it has failed to cut spending and has increased, rather than decreased, regulations on business.

As opposed to economic freedom, I feel the most strain with the mainstream of the Republican Party on issues of individual liberty. Over the past two decades, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by the so-called “religious right,” which seeks to increase government regulation of the private lives of the citizenry. This has become apparent with the rise in power of evangelical political factions led by political/religious demigods such as Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. At this point, I feel a brief clarification is in order. I am in no way questioning the faith of these men. Rather, my disagreement with them is in the way they have injected faith into government.

Our Declaration of Independence holds that all people have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The social conservative movement, however, has endeavored to use their power in government to impose their own moral standards through the mechanisms of government. My personal belief is that the proper role of government is limited to those aspects outlined in the preamble of the Constitution: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The brilliance of our Constitution is the same thing that leaves it open to abuse by those in power – its vagueness. The Founding Fathers laid out a foundation for a free society and a limited government with very few specifics. While this decision to leave out specifics underscores the decentralized nature of American democracy, it also allows those in power to read their own beliefs into the Constitution and dramatically distort its meaning. For example, the phrase, “promote the general Welfare,” is one of the most abused portions of the preamble of the Constitution. As the years have passed since the ratification of the Constitution, American policy has progressed further from the original intent of this clause. Especially during the 20th century, “promote the general Welfare” has been used to justify the massive expansion of government programs and social engineering. The left has used the clause to justify social welfare programs that result in massive redistributions of wealth. On the right, the clause has been used to justify government intervention in issues of personal morality such as prohibition and, more recently, the definition of marriage. The idea, from the social conservative movement, is that the government should regulate moral issues in order to protect the welfare of children and “traditional family values.” However, both sides have distorted the true intent of this clause. In Federalist 41, James Madison writes that the preamble of the Constitution was never intended to amount to “an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Rather, the preamble of the Constitution, according to Madison, should be understood in the context of the entire document which stresses the limited and enumerated powers of government. Thus, the role of government is not to do whatever it finds necessary to promote the “general Welfare” of the country, but only that which it has been empowered to do. Currently, I can find no political party that fully aligns behind this ideal. The mainstream of the Republican Party (mostly social conservatives and neocons), as I have said, attempts to use the power of government to regulate many issues of personal liberty, and the left attempts to use the power of government to forcibly mold all aspects of society into what it views as a “fair” or “utopian” model.

Now, because of these objections, many would suggest finding shelter under the tent of Libertarianism. While I do admit to possessing strong libertarian tendencies, I also possess disagreements with the mainstream libertarian positions towards issues of law and order (esp. as it relates to drug policy and enforcement) as well as the proper role and scope of powers possessed by the U.S. military and intelligence communities. I am also uncomfortable with libertarianism because of its recent public image as reflected in the attention given to the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul this election cycle. Due to Rep. Paul’s success and his incessant (infuriating) claims that he was a “true Constitutionalist,” libertarian ideology has become increasingly attached to his beliefs, many of which I find to be antithetical to sound reason and good Constitutional scholarship. As an admitted Constitutional nerd, I have spent and continue to spend much of my time studying the founding period. Over the course of this study, it seems clear to me that it is a futile endeavor to attempt to narrowly define the beliefs of the Founding Fathers to a neat and tidy set of core principles. Yes, liberty is the cornerstone on which the nation was founded and the oracle to which we should look in all matters. However, this nation was also founded amidst both military and political conflict, which has established a tradition of debate and dissent in our policy making process. Indeed, much of the legacy of Washington’s administration was forged by the intense disagreement between Alexander Hamilton’s political ideology of “power and responsibility” (as I called it in my thesis on Hamilton’s democratic theory) and Thomas Jefferson’s more populist beliefs. For Rep. Paul to define himself as a “true Constitutionalist” and thus suggest that his personal ideology is in lockstep with that of the Founding Fathers, then, is both disingenuous and highly arrogant.

Admittedly, I am still in the process of learning about libertarian ideology and, thus, my beliefs on the matter are constantly evolving. It is also important to note that there is much less uniformity within the libertarian community as to specific beliefs than within the two major political parties. Libertarianism, then, seems to be a much more free-form species of political ideology, which is one of its major strengths.

While the development of my political beliefs has left me feeling like a conservative without a home, I feel that this may not be a bad thing. The pressure exerted on the American public by the major political parties and the media to “choose sides” in the battle for the future of American democracy is a false pretence based on a desire to simplify what should be a complex struggle. I am reminded of my time spent working for a local branch of the Republican Party during which we distributed bumper stickers that read: “A True Republican Votes Straight Republican.” The intent was to build the party by encouraging people to vote for every candidate that had an “R” next to his or her name. This slogan, while effective for party building, simply encouraged people to take the easy way out and not consider the beliefs of each individual candidate and how those beliefs aligned with their own opinions on the role of government. It’s time that the American people woke up and realized this simple truth: democracy is hard. Self-government is not something we can delegate to political parties and our elected officials. Rather, we must be ever vigilant in maintaining it. After the Constitutional Convention’s final day of deliberation in 1787, a woman approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence Hall and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded simply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

On Notice: Thomas DiLorenzo

Earlier this evening I decided to pay a visit to a new independent bookstore that just opened near my house (for those of you in the Dallas area, go visit Legacy Books - great bookstore). As I was looking through the stacks I came across a book entitled, "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution -- and What It Means for Americans Today," by Thomas DiLorenzo. The basic thesis of the book is that the Hamiltonian political legacy was a betrayal of the ideals of the American Revolution and that Alexander Hamilton is to blame for the problems facing the United States today.

As many of you know, I wrote my senior thesis on Hamilton's democratic theory and am not shy about citing him as my favorite Founding Father. So, naturally, I was intrigued (and a little miffed) by DiLorenzo's thesis and decided to do a little research on DiLorenzo and the reasoning behind his claims. What I found was that DiLorenzo seems to be the kind of "historian" (and I use the term very loosely here) who prefers to manipulate history to fit within his own political biases than to report it accurately. For purposes of fairness it should be noted that DiLorenzo is a professor of economics and not history. However, this is no excuse for his distortions.

Since Hamiltonian scholarship is a bit of a passion of mine, I could go on at length on the subject. However, I will spare you all the boredom and simply attack a few of DiLorenzo's most egregious distortions.

First, DiLorenzo, in an column published on Lew Rockwell's website, claims that Hamilton "lied through his teeth in The Federalist Papers when he spoke favorably about states' rights and federalism," and thus betrayed the Revolution. The problem is that this is a hyperbolic statement based on quotes that DiLorenzo cherry picked to fit his particular ideology. DiLorenzo bases his assertion that Hamilton "lied through his teeth" on a speech given by Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in which he appears to advocate for what DiLorenzo calls a "dictatorial chief executive with king-like powers." In this speech, Hamilton stated that "the hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emolument so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad; and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controlled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home." This particular speech had to do with Hamilton's belief in benefits of looking to the British Crown as a model on which to base the American executive. He was not, however, advocating an American monarchy. Rather, Hamilton was noting that even though the American Colonies had rebelled against the abuses of the British monarchy and Parliament, that some lessons could be learned from the model and modified to fit within the principles and ideals of the American Revolution. Specifically, Hamilton looked to the independence of the British monarch as a source of stability against the potential abuses of pure democracy. Hamilton, more than any other Founding Father, recognized the possibility that the colonies, having recently thrown off the yolk of a corrupt monarchy, would go too far with its brand of republicanism and establish a nearly anarchical state that would quickly become destabilized and destroy itself. DiLorenzo either did not do the necessary research or simply chose to ignore the context surrounding Hamilton's ideas for the American executive. If he had, he would have discovered another portion of Hamilton's 1787 address to the Constitutional Convention in which he states, "we ought to go as far, in order to attain stability and permanency, as republican principles will admit."

A second distortion is DiLorenzo's claim that Hamilton advocated "the creation of a large national debt for the sake of having a large national debt." Further, DiLorenzo claimed that the purpose of this debt was to tie the wealthy people to the national government so that they would "always support tax increases and bigger government." This is such an outright distortion (blatant lie) that I cannot even give DiLorenzo the benefit of the doubt. What DiLorenzo calls Hamilton's "creation of a large national debt" was not a creation of debt at all. Rather, it was a consolidation of the debts that the individual states incurred during the Revolution. The goal of this consolidation, as outlined in Hamilton's "First Report on Public Credit," was to allow the United States to quickly pay off the debts that it owed to other nations in order to establish good credit. Hamilton recognized that "states, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct." Thus, in order to gain the respect of the world, one of the first steps that the young nation had to take was the swift repayment of the debts it owed. In developing a policy for the repayment of public debts, Hamilton considered "whether such a provision cannot be more conveniently and effectually made by one general plan, issuing from one authority, than by different plans, originating from different authorities." To put it simply, would the Revolutionary War debts owed by the individual states be more efficiently paid off if left to the states to pay them or if they were assumed by the federal government and consolidated into a national debt? Since the states were no longer autonomous entities under the Union created by the Constitution, Hamilton believed that the best solution was to consolidate the debt in order to prevent the destabilization of the nation's credit that would occur if one or more of the states was unable (or unwilling) to pay off the debts that they owed. The assumption of the state war debts by the federal government also accomplished a secondary goal that Hamilton had: it created a sense of goodwill amongst the states to the federal government and further unified the nation. At that time, citizens of the United States felt more loyalty to their individual states than to the nation as a whole. This is understandable since prior to the Revolution each colony was autonomous, owing its only loyalty to the British monarchy. Once independence was declared, the colonies gained even more autonomy, creating only a loose confederation for the common purpose of throwing off the monarchy. The assumption of the state debts by the national government was one way that Hamilton believed a greater sense of unity could created amongst the individual states. This union, he rightly believed, was essential for the survival of the young republic.

Finally, DiLorenzo claims that Hamilton "spent his entire adult life lobbying for 'excessive' government." As I have shown in the above discussion on Hamilton's framework for the executive, DiLorenzo's claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hamilton. Again, drawing from Hamilton's speeches at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we see that "excessive" government was not part of Hamilton's vision. Rather, his speeches reveal a fundamental belief that power naturally begets tyranny whether it is concentrated in the hands of the few or the many. The solution advocated by Hamilton was that power "ought to be in the hands of both [i.e. the few and the many] and they should be separated." Power, then, "if separated [...would] need a mutual check." Thus, when we actually look to history and Hamilton's own words, we see a political philosophy that advocates the quintessentially American notion of separation of powers as opposed to "excessive" government.

Since he has either been a lazy historian (at best) or blatantly distorted history to fit within his own political biases (at worst), Thomas DiLorenzo is officially on notice.

Obama (finally) Tells the Truth About His Tax Plan

The following video is an exchange between Sen. Barack Obama and a plumber who asked him to explain his tax proposal during a meet and greet. The plumber is preparing to buy a plumbing company with an annual revenue above $250,000 and wanted to know if his taxes were going to go up. Obama is surprisingly honest with the man telling him that not only would his taxes would go up under an Obama administration, but also that he would be bearing a larger tax burden in order to better "spread the wealth around."



This is a blatant statement of socialism coming straight from Sen. Obama himself. Obama's tax increases aren't just aimed at the wealthiest of the wealthy, but will hurt blue collar and middle class business owners like the plumber in this video. When we hear Obama speaking about a "slight" tax increase on those making $250,000 or more, we immediately think that this will only affect wealthy CEOs - the people who have the money to throw around. The problem is that Obama neglects to inform us of the laws that govern business formation. Most small to medium sized businesses businesses, like the plumbing company that the man in the video is preparing to buy, are structured under the tax laws in such a way as to receive what is known as "pass through taxation." "Pass through taxation" essentially means that all the businesses' earnings are attributed to the owners of the business as income, which is taxed at whatever rate corresponds to the owner's tax bracket. This is a different structure than that which applies to corporate earnings. Under the corporate structure (did somebody say wealthy CEOs?), business earnings are subject to double taxation - once at the entity level and then when the earnings are distributed among the shareholders and employees (the individual level). It is likely that this plumber will be running his newly purchased company as a sole proprietorship and, as a result, will be shot into the highest income tax bracket.

While I am on the subject of income tax brackets, Sen. Obama also told the plumber that "the folks who make more than $250,000 will be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% rate." Currently, the highest tax bracket in our code is 35%. Sen. Obama is not only proposing adding new small business owners to the highest tax bracket, but is also proposing increasing the percentage of the income that is taken from those who fall under this tax bracket. Under the current tax code, a single individual must make $357,000+ in order to fall into the highest (currently 35%) tax bracket. According to what Sen. Obama is saying in this video, the minimum amount of annual income required to be included in the highest tax bracket would decrease to $250,000 (a difference of $107,000), while the amount of tax liability of those in this bracket would increase to 39% (a 4% change).

One final juicy bit of information. The plumber asked Obama if he would be open to a flat tax, which Obama said that he would, but that it is not feasible. Sen. Obama stated that the government would have to impose a 40% sales tax in order to make up the revenue. Here's the problem - the plan that Obama described was the fair tax and not the flat tax. A fair tax would replace the current federal income tax system with a nationwide sales tax, which is regressive and generally not favored. Under a flat tax, however, all income would be taxed at a single, low rate. A flat tax system would also get rid of the various deductions and loopholes that have led to corruption in the administration of the income tax. The only exception would be a generous personal exemption that would be available to every American and would result in the first $40,000 of income for a family of four being exempt from any tax. The proposal is based on an economic model known as the Laffer Curve, which shows that when government enacts tax cuts, revenues to the government actually increase. Back in March of 2006, Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader who also happens to hold a Ph.D. in economics, testified before Congress on the wisdom of the flat tax proposal. You can read the full text of Leader Armey's testimony here.

At a time of economic crisis brought on by government mismanagement of the economy, the last thing that we need is Sen. Obama's plan to increase government intervention and redistribute wealth.

Capitalism Isn't Dead

Simon Jenkins over at The Guardian argues that the current economic crisis does not mark the end of capitalism or free markets - despite the wishes of those on the left.

Although I agree with the basic thesis of Jenkins' article, we must still be on guard against the aims of those who seek to exploit the economic downturn in order to gain a foothold for socialism.

Who Says The Law Can't Be Fun?

A Nebraska court just threw out a state senator's lawsuit against God. Sen. Ernie Chambers filed the suit against the Lord seeking to impose a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing any more acts of violence in the form of natural disasters. Judge Marlon Polk dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that there was no evidence that the Almighty had been served, and further noted that "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant." Full story here.

The Truth About Obama's "Tax Cuts"

Today's Wall Street Journal exposes Sen. Obama's false "tax cut" plan for what it really is - a massive redistribution of wealth that really isn't a tax cut at all.

Tolerance

It's hard to be hopeful about the future of liberty in the United States. Currently, we are undergoing a massive socialization of the economy through the bailouts of the financial and housing markets. This socialization is almost certain to expand under either an Obama or McCain administration (although much more so under Obama).

This post is not about the socialization of the economy, however. One of the greatest casualties of the current presidential campaign is the steady erosion of free speech and the respect of opposing political viewpoints. Now, I am the first to admit that I do not agree with the liberal view of the proper role of government and am not afraid of challenging those I disagree with. That being said, whenever I do disagree with someone I make every effort to respect their point of view - especially if that person has arrived at that point of view by honestly considering the issues. In fact, I have several close friends who are liberal and we get along just fine because of the mutual respect we have for the other's right of belief. This campaign season, however, has seen a steady erosion of this respect and a desire to silence dissent - coming especially from those on the left. This is not to say that the right doesn't have its own problems in this area (note to the morons at McCain rallies shouting about Obama being Muslim and yelling "off with his head" - please don't vote because I really do not want to be associated with your idiocy), but it is much more isolated than it is on the left. From the beginning of this campaign, we have seen an organized effort on the left to paint anyone who dares oppose Obama as a racist (I will not go into details as I have examined this phenomena extensively in previous posts). Personally, I have been yelled at and threatened on numerous occasions for daring to question the wisdom of liberal dogma. The catalyst for this post, though, was something that just happened to a friend of mine. Over the weekend, an Obama supporter defaced her car with black spray paint so that she would know that he was not happy with her McCain bumper sticker.

Another event, which caught my attention was a video of a pro-McCain rally that occurred in New York City about a month ago. I do not necessarily agree with the text that scrolls across the screen, but the events in the video are very similar to what I have experienced while attempting to engage the left in debate.




These kinds of events seem to be occurring with greater frequency. People, we need to respect each other's right of belief. The right of self-determination is at the very foundation of the idea of liberty upon which this country was founded. Disagreements are fine, but when we start trying to silence those we disagree with by threatening them or vandalizing their property, then something is seriously wrong.

Hey, I Know That Guy!

Matt Kibbe, one of my bosses at FreedomWorks this past summer, has a great article on the bailout in Reason Magazine today.

Federalist Society (SMU Chapter) Discussion on Natural Law

Dr. Roger Pilon, legal scholar and editor for the Cato Institute and former senior official in the Reagan administration, gave a talk on the Natural Law basis of the American Constitutional system and its effects on jurisprudence.

View my notes here.

Keep Up the Fight for Economic Freedom

On Tuesday, the American people rose up in the defense of free markets and forced Congress to reject the fiscally irresponsible Wall Street Bailout. However, the leadership in Congress and Treasury will not be defeated so easily. They are already planning on bringing back the bailout with little improvements. To borrow one of Sen. Obama's favorite catchphrases, it's like "putting lipstick on a pig."

The five members listed below are traditionally supporters of fiscal responsibility, but voted to support the bailout package. Please take a few minutes to call their offices and encourage them to switch their votes from "yes" to "no" on the Wall Street bailout. Call the capitol switchboard at 1-866-928-3035 and ask to be connected to one of the following legislators:

Rep. Kay Granger
Rep. Adam Putnam
Rep. John Campbell
Rep. Greg Walden
Rep. Joe Wilson
Rep. Pete Sessions

The Bailout is Dead, For Now

Yesterday, the House rejected the massive, irresponsible bailout that would transfer bad Wall Street debts onto the backs of the American taxpayer. The package reflects the typical attitude of Congress: throw money at the problem, but don't address the root causes of the problem.

This is like a bunch of inept doctors treating a gunshot victim. The victim comes into the ER bleeding heavily and the doctors rush around to stop the bleeding - the immediate problem that they see. After getting the bleeding under control, the doctors close up the wound without removing the bullet or treating the resulting infection. So, even though the doctors were able to keep the victim from bleeding out, he still dies.

Harvard economist, Jeffry A. Miron, has a great column on the underlying causes of the crisis and what should be done to solve the problem.

Fight the Wall Street Bailout

The good people at FreedomWorks are currently fighting the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investors. Head on over to www.nowallstreetbailout.com and lend your voice to the cause.

Politico has an article featuring the work that FreedomWorks has been doing to stop irresponsible bailouts.

Also, Reason Magazine has an incredible article outlining how the current financial crisis is not a failure of the free market, contrary to the claims of those on the left and in the media.

Obama Loses His Teleprompter

Come again?

Jonah Goldberg And I Are On The Same Page

Jonah Goldberg's column in today's L.A. Times highlights many of the same points as my recent post about the assertion that the only way Sen. Obama can lose is because of racism.

Biden Denounces Obama Ad

No, that title is not a mistake. In a recent campaign appearance, Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, denounced a television ad released by the campaign as "terrible." The ad in question, which was paid for by the Obama campaign, mocked Sen. McCain as out of touch based on his admission that he is not good at using a computer and can't send an email.

Sen. Biden went on to say that "if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it." Maybe that's because Sen. Biden knows that the reason Sen. McCain can't send an email is because of the wounds that he received as a POW during Vietnam. The injuries, which prevent Sen. McCain from lifting his arms above his shoulders, make it painful for him to use a keyboard. Thus, Sen. McCain will often dictate his emails to his wife, Cindy, or a member of his staff.

Despite Sen. Biden's denouncement of the attack, Sen. Obama has yet to apologize for exploiting Sen. McCain's disability for political gain.

I can't help but wonder that if Sen. Obama were running in 1932, if he would have attacked FDR for not being able to walk.

Quotes of the Day - A New Kind of Politics

Barack Obama: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

John McCain: "One of the things Americans are tired of, one of the things they're tired of is people yelling at each other in America, have you noticed that? They want us to respect each other's opinions...Americans want a dialogue."

Which view represents a new, more hopeful kind of politics?

The Race Card

Is the Barack Obama campaign laying the foundation to claim racism in the event that he loses the election on November 4? Based on the recent comments by many of his prominent supporters and members of the media, it would seem so. Here are a few examples:


- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius: “Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn't show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”

- Tom Brokaw, "Meet the Press": "if Senator McCain wins...does he win because of race and playing the race card?

- Jack Cafferty, CNN: "The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race."

-Chris Matthews, MSNBC: [discussing polling with Joe Scarborough the morning after Obama lost the New Hampshire primary] "Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue."

- Jacob Weisberg, columnist for "Slate": [title of column] "If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him"

- Howard Dean, DNC Chair: "folks of color, and even women, are more successful in the Democrat Party than they are in the white, excuse me, the Republican Party."

- Sen. Barack Obama: "They're going to try to say, 'well, you know, he's got a funny name' and 'he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills.'" [he said this comment in several stump speeches until it became an issue]

While I believe that voting against Sen. Obama simply because of his race is deplorable, I am insulted by the insinuation that the only way Obama can lose the election is because of racist voters. Yes, racism still exists and is a problem. However, the United States has come a long way and those individuals who will cast their votes based on race are a very small minority of the population.

Elitists in the Democratic party and the mainstream media are essentially suggesting that I am a racist because I will not be voting for Sen. Obama. In their minds, there is absolutely no way that anyone could [or should] disagree with his big government, boarder-line socialist policies. Therefore, if I dare to disagree with the enlightened one, then I must be a racist - a sad relic from a bygone era who just can't seem to get with these modern times.

It's interesting that most of the comments listed above (in addition to countless others I found) came after Sen. McCain overtook Sen. Obama in the polls. To the Obama campaign and its surrogates in the mainstream media, this was unthinkable - Obama's victory was a foregone conclusion. Faced with the reality that this is going to be a tight race and that Sen. Obama very well could lose in Novemer, the DNC has resorted to scare tactics and name-calling in order to shame people into "falling in line" behind Sen. Obama.

Is this the "new" kind of politics that we were promised?

Quote of the Day

"Obama’s plan of huge spending and tax increases, less free trade, and gas prices that could hit $10 a gallon (while we build windmills) is just what’s needed to turn the current financial crisis into another Great Depression."
-Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law

They Think You're Stupid - Democrats Push Hoax Energy Bill

On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed new energy legislation meant to fool the American people into thinking that they are actually doing something about the high price of gas. In fact, the bill will likely do more to raise the price at the pump because of the $30 billion in new production taxes it contains.

In an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes, the bill touted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as a "solution" only authorizes drilling that takes place 100+ miles off the coastline (50+ miles with state approval). There's just one tiny problem: according to industry experts, the vast majority of the offshore oil reserves exist within 50-miles of the coastline. Thus, if any drilling occurs at all, it is likely that the rigs will be pumping dry holes or produce barely enough to cover costs. Practically, this means that costs to oil companies will increase without a corresponding increase in supply - costs that will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices.

Further increasing the cost of energy is a provision in the bill that increases taxes on energy companies and redistributes that revenue to finance the development of alternative energy. Now, I fully support the development of alternative sources of energy, but increasing taxes on energy companies and redistributing that money is not the way to accomplish this goal. Again, the short-term result is an increase in the cost of doing business for energy companies, which will be passed along to consumers in the form of - you guessed it - higher prices. This provision is essentially a socialist policy and will do more to prevent the economy from progressing toward alternative energy than move it toward that goal. The free-market system has consistently been proven to spur innovation through the incentives that it provides and should be allowed to work. The solution is simple - energy companies are in the business of producing energy and know better than anyone that oil is a limited commodity. Thus, it is in the interests of the energy companies to pursue economically viable alternative sources of energy. However, the world economy currently runs on oil and production must continue in order to prevent the economy from stalling. Rather than telling the energy companies that we are going to increase their tax burden and cost of doing business, we should be promoting market-based policies that would increase the incentive for energy companies to be the first to produce an economically-viable replacement to petroleum.

Finally, the Pelosi package requires that 10% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be released into the market. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency supply of oil reserved for catastrophic events and crippling disruptions in supply. By law, any oil that is removed from the reserve must be replaced. Since oil is rarely removed from the SPR, the oil that is being released was put in at a lower cost than that which exists in the current market. Thus, the 10% that would be released under this bill would have to be replaced - likely at a much higher price.

Although Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats claim that their package is meant to encourage alternative energy it completely ignores nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that has proven to be both completely clean and economically viable. It is not often that I look to the French for inspiration. However, this is one area where they have gotten it right. Nearly 80% of all electric power in France is produced by nuclear power. This seems to not matter to the Pelosi-wing of the Democrat party, which seems to prefer to play politics than find real solutions.

The bill will now head to the Senate where it will compete with three alternative proposals. Senators have a very limited time frame in which to take action because the current Congressional ban on offshore drilling is set to expire on September 30. Given the alternative, it seems that allowing the ban to expire will do more to increase domestic supplies of oil and ease the pain at the pump.

Congress is Back, Dems Soften on Drilling

Good news from Capitol Hill - Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House have softened their position on energy legislation.

Prior to the August recess, Speaker Pelosi had blocked any discussion of opening up Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to exploration and drilling, saying that such proposals were a "hoax." This prompted Republicans, who had been silenced by the Speaker's dictatorial tactics, to stage an historic protest by refusing to leave the House floor for recess until a vote was allowed on an "all of the above" energy package. The tactic aroused public support for the Republican position and opposition to the strong-arm, partisan tactics of Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi, however, continues to misrepresent the Republican position, calling it a "drill-only" policy. Apparently she hasn't learned much over the past month. Her attitude seems to indicate that she thinks the American public is stupid. Anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention is aware that House Republicans are not pushing for a "drill-only" solution, but for a position that increases domestic supplies of oil in the short term while promoting the development of renewable sources of energy.

The debate over energy policy should never have reached this point. Whether we like it or not, the economy still runs on oil and an economically viable alternative does not exist (that is, an alternative that is affordable for the majority of the population). As I have said many times before, the best solution to the current energy crisis is to open up the OCS (85% of which is still off-limits to exploration and drilling) to lower the price of petroleum in the short term while simultaneously promoting the development of alternative fuels.

The question is not one of oil vs. alternatives, but how do we move the economy towards alternatives in a way that both protects the environment and maintains growth. An "all of the above" solution seems is the best way to accomplish this goal.

As If I Didn't Need Another Reason to Hate Oprah

As most of you know, I am not exactly Oprah's biggest fan. Yes, I know that she does a lot of good with her money. The problem is that as soon as she does it she turns around and has a special program about how much good she just did. Plus, it's just annoying the way many of her viewers blindly believe her every word.

Oprah had never taken a public stance on an election until this year when she announced that she was supporting Sen. Barack Obama and had him as a guest on her show. Now, I am not begrudging her the right to support the candidate of her choice and have any guest she wants on her show. However, according to the Drudge Report, Oprah has refused to interview Gov. Sarah Palin on her show. The same Oprah who continually tries to empower women and young girls (a noble goal) has refused to interview the woman who could be our nation's first female Vice President. Regardless of your politics, this interview would be a great lesson in female accomplishment and empowerment for our nation's daughters.

In a statement released shortly after Drudge broke the news, Oprah decried the story as "categorically untrue." Her O-ness further stated:

"There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At
the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to
take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not
to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin
would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the
campaign is over."

Here's the problem: her claim that she "made the decision to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates" is, to use her words, "categorically untrue." First, Oprah interviewed Sen. Obama on her show in December of 2006. Then, in the November 2007 issue of "O Magazine" (when it was clear that Obama would seek the presidency), she interviewed Michelle Obama. Most recently, Michelle Obama was interviewed by Oprah's best friend, Gayle King, on XM Radio's "Oprah and Friends" channel on August 25, 2008 - the eve of Mrs. Obama's speech before the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, a visit to her website reveals a series of interviews and stories on Sen. Obama and his family.

While the interview with Sen. Obama on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" occurred at the end of 2006, before he had officially announced his run for President, the other interviews and feature stories on the Obamas have come since Sen. Obama became a candidate. So, although it is true that Oprah has not used her TV show as a platform for the candidates, she has used her media empire (magazine, XM radio channel, and website) as well as personal campaign appearances to promote the candidacy of Sen. Obama.

I am not saying that Oprah should be forced to interview Gov. Palin on her show. However, she can't lie to the American people by telling us that she has never used your show or empire to promote a particular candidate. It is Oprah's right as a businesswoman to use her business as she sees fit. Just be honest about it. If Oprah truly wants her show to be neutral, then she should give equal access to both sides and interview Gov. Palin. If not, she should be clear that she is supporting Sen. Obama and, because of that support, will be using her show to promote his candidacy alone.

How Sarah Palin and the McCain Campaign Should Address Foreign Policy

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been the subject of intense discussion since being named as Sen. John McCain’s running mate. Much of this discussion has focused on her apparent lack of foreign policy experience. The response of the McCain campaign thus far has been inadequate to quell these concerns. This need not be the case given the strategic importance of Alaska.

Alaska’s Fort Greely is the main base of operations for National Missile Defense, which is aimed at countering the threat posed by the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles in rogue states such as North Korea. The base is widely considered to be the “tip of the spear” for missile defense and, to that end, boasts at least eight ground-based interceptors capable of being launched at a moment’s notice. The interceptors are supported by a network of sophisticated radar systems located throughout Alaska. The centerpiece of this network is a $900 million radar on a floating platform just off the coast that is responsible for providing surveillance, target acquisition, tracking, and kill confirmation. A significant portion of Alaska’s state budget is directed toward providing support services and infrastructure for the entire missile defense initiative. Ft. Greely and the State of Alaska have played and will continue to play a leading role in the nation’s foreign policy through the development of the NMD program. It is obvious, then, that Gov. Palin would be well versed in the importance of the program and its international implications.

In addition to missile defense, Alaska’s reserves of oil and natural gas are of global importance. The current debate over how best to deal with the energy crisis has highlighted the global nature of the oil market, and that any domestic decisions will have wide-ranging international implications. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline runs nearly 800 miles connecting the oil fields of northern Alaska to the southern seaport where the oil is transported to refineries in the lower 48 states. Since its completion in 1977, the pipeline has transported over 15 billion barrels of oil – a figure that is likely to increase significantly if Congress finally authorizes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As governor, there is little doubt that Palin is well aware of the international significance of her state’s natural resources will have on the energy crisis.

McCain has been surprisingly candid about enjoying his status as the underdog in this campaign. By keeping expectations low, the campaign has been able to generate greater amounts of political capital from their successes than they likely would be able to as the frontrunner. This strategy may be the reason why they have not made a strong effort to highlight these aspects of Gov. Palin’s experience. By allowing the Obama campaign and the pundits raise concerns about her foreign policy credentials in the weeks leading up to the first debate, the McCain campaign can capitalize on a stellar performance by Gov. Palin when she squares off against Sen. Biden. If she comes out and speaks convincingly about matters relating to foreign policy, McCain will have yet another “I told you so” moment. However, by allowing the narrative to continue, the possibility exists that the doubts about Palin created in the minds of voters will have already taken root by the time the debates roll around.

The McCain campaign should take control of the story by having Gov. Palin speak extensively on her involvement with missile defense and her state’s oil and gas reserves. Emphasizing the work that she has lead in connection with these two issues as well as demonstrating her understanding of their international implications will ease the doubts of voters and dull the Obama campaign’s attacks.

Sarah Palin

Sen. McCain has made a brilliant choice with his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I was first exposed to Gov. Palin this summer while researching energy policy for my internship. She had made waves by declaring her support for opening parts of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. There had been some buzz about her being a possible choice for McCain, but she was a long shot at best.

Gov. Palin helps McCain in several ways. First, she brings solid conservative credentials to the ticket, a problem that had been plaguing McCain since the primaries. With her selection, McCain will likely shore up the conservative base of the party - a group that has been on the fence about a McCain candidacy since the primaries. Second, she has a reputation in Alaska as an aggressive reformer. As has been made public with the recent indictment of Sen. Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens, Alaskan politics have long been plagued by corruption. During her candidacy for governor, Palin ran on a platform of cleaning up the state government in Juno. She delivered on that promise from day one of her administration and made enemies of the status quo by aggressively going after corruption, earmarks, and kickbacks. Third, her life story is a major plus with "average" Americans. Prior to entering public service, she worked briefly as a sports reporter for a local TV station, but spent most of her life working alongside her husband in the commercial fishing business. Thus, middle and working class Americans can easily identify with her.

Not surprisingly, the Obama campaign has already started their attacks on Governor Palin. The Obama camp, in a press release issued this morning, said that Palin has "zero" experience. Not only is this a laughable attack, it's completely dishonest. Consider the following comparison of the records of Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama:

- Gov. Palin entered public service in 1992 by being elected to the Wasilla City Council. In 1996 she was elected mayor of the town, a position she held until 2002. She was elected governor of Alaska in 2006 and has served in that capacity since.

- Sen. Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1997 and to the United States Senate in 2005. He has less than 200 days of actual on-the-job experience in the federal government. During that time, the vast majority of his votes were either "Present" or "Not Voting."

So, what does this mean? Gov. Palin as over a decade of experience in elected office, and about 8 years of experience in executive office. Sen. Obama has barely over a decade in any elected office and zero executive experience. When Sen. Obama was first elected to office in 1997, Gov. Palin already had five years worth of experience as an elected official.

Gov. Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice and will make a great Vice President.

Today, We Are All Georgians

"Independence Forever." - John Adams

Get Brian Phillips to Austin City Limits

Help my buddy Brian get the chance to play Austin City Limits this year. Brian is an incredible musician who deserves a shot at the big time.

Click here to vote!

We Fought A Revolution Over This

By now, most of you are aware of the ongoing Republican revolt on the House floor. However, many of you may not know the story of how it began.

Last Friday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi banged her gavel and sent the House of Representatives into a five-week recess. While the House usually takes a recess in August, what made this move unusual was the timing. Before the House goes to recess, Representatives are given to opportunity to sign up for what are known as “5 minute speeches.” During these speeches, members of Congress are permitted to talk about issues that they believe to be important before Congress goes out of session. On Friday, over 100 Republican members had signed up to give their speeches per House rules only to have Speaker Pelosi end the session before giving them their chance to speak. Rather than be silenced, the jilted members decided to give their speeches anyway and began the guerrilla session.

As I sat in the House chambers this week listening to this story being told, it struck me that Speaker Pelosi’s actions bore a striking similarity to those taken by King George III of England that ultimately led to the American Revolution.

When the Colonies decided to break away from Great Britain, a decision was made that necessity of the break should be clearly outlined and justified to the rest of the world. This justification was the Declaration of Independence - a document that enshrines the most sacred principles this nation was founding upon. The Declaration also lists a multitude of the abuses committed by the British Crown on the colonies. Two of these abuses, I believe, are especially relevant to the current situation in Congress:

“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”

AND

“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

These two passages illustrate one of the primary complaints the colonies had - they were not given equal representation in British Parliament.

By banging her gavel and silencing the Republican minority before they were allowed their opportunity to speak, Nancy Pelosi has essentially suspended our legislature and declared herself the sole authority on what kind of legislation is good for the American people. She has not only silenced the opinions of Republican members of Congress, but also the people that they represent.

Since the people are the ultimate source of authority in our Republic, Speaker Pelosi should not be surprised that a revolution that is brewing. While the first revolution was fought with cannons and muskets, this revolution is being fought with speeches, blog entries, protests, and will ultimately will be won with ballots.

House Floor Revolt - Day 3

I was back on the floor of the house this morning for day 3 of the Republican revolt against Congress' inactivity on the high cost of energy.

Much of the message was the same as the day before as members of Congress not only discussed the need for energy solutions now, but also educated the new visitors to the House about the history that they were witnessing. While one of the speakers was giving the background as to how the protest started, I learned that over 100 Republican Congressmen had signed up to give "5 minute speeches" that are traditionally allowed before the close of recess only to have Speaker Pelosi shut of their microphones and gavel the House into recess before they could utter a word. Talk about suppressing free speech.

One thing that the Representatives did was provide more details about the specific plans that they had for solving the energy crisis. Before the microphones were cut off, the Republicans had intended to talk about HR 6566, the so-called "American Energy Act." Contrary to what is being said in the media by Speaker Pelosi and others, this bill could best be described as an "all of the above" solution. The bill includes provisions that would allow responsible drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR while also providing for the development of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro-electric power. I think Rep. Louie Gohmert said it best when he told the crowd, "People who tell you that this is just about oil are either being ignorant or dishonest." Given Speaker Pelosi's record and the record of the do-nothing Democratic Congress, I think it could be a little of both.

The crowd was much more active today, partly because people are learning more and more about the issue as the days go on. At one point the speeches stopped for about 3 minutes as the entire room, responding to Rep. Gohmert's speech, erupted into a loud chant of "Vote! Vote! Vote!"

But, the day wasn't just about the issue at hand. The most heartwarming moment of the day was when an Army soldier, who had been on a tour, walked into the gallery and was immediately led down to the middle of the floor and given a standing ovation by all in attendance.

American democracy is definitely alive and well this week.

"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Last Friday, as you may know, a group of Republican members of the House of Representatives refused to leave the floor of the House and go home for August Recess. The group stayed on the floor in protest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) decision to go to recess without taking any action on the energy crisis facing this nation. Apparently, Pelosi did not want to entertain Republican plans for comprehensive energy legislation that would authorize drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf while simultaneously developing alternative energy technology.

The protest continued today with 23 Republican Representatives returning to Washington, D.C. to discuss energy solutions and pressure Speaker Pelosi to allow an open debate on energy.

At around 11:00am, our office received a call from Minority Whip Roy Blunt's (R-MO) office asking us to come to the floor to cover the speeches. Upon arriving at the Capitol, we were escorted down onto the floor of the House. I later found out that it was unprecedented to allow non-members on the floor during debate.

My immediate impression of the moment was one of awe. There was a definite energy in the room that seemed almost revolutionary. Normal House protocol prevents members from talking directly to the crowds observing from the galleries and visitors are not allowed to cheer. Today, however, members are mingling with the visitors (I was actually sitting next to Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia), and the people observing are loudly cheering on the speakers on the floor.

Some highlights of the speeches:

- 11:40am: During a speech by Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), the crowd started chanting
"Vote! Vote! Vote!"
- 11:45am: Rep. John Kline (R-MN) told those observing that they were part of "an historic moment," and that although "Congress is doing nothing about the price of gas; we're here to do something."
- 11:50am: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), one of the organizers of the protest, explained that Pelosi was blocking a comprehensive energy plan supported by a bi-partisan majority that would give us more access to American oil. He later drew from a quote by Daniel Webster that is carved into the gallery wall above the Speaker's seat: "Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered."
- 11:55am: Standing ovation for Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) who helped organize the protest.
- 12:00pm: Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said that Dayton school districts were stopping bus
services for students due to the high cost of fuel and stated that "our economic security is
at risk." He then called on Speaker Pelosi to "bring this House back," so that it could
unleash the inventiveness of our country.
- 12:05pm: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) - "If we lose our free market economy, then what
happens to your freedom?" Talked about the fact that we can't get through this problem
without offshore drilling and noted that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, several
offshore rigs were badly damaged without a single leak.
- 12:20pm: Peter Roskam (R-IL) said that he got the call about the protest yesterday
and drove all night to be a part of it, arriving in D.C. at 3:00am. Compared the energy
crisis to the Stamp Act saying it is an issue that affects everyone and that the people
people must rise up to ensure that something gets done.
- 12:30pm: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) - "We care about the environment, but it is a
question of balance." Decried Speaker Pelosi's silencing of the minority, saying that "this
is the United States, not the Soviet Union."
- 12:45pm: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) highlighted the various bills that the
Democrats made priorities over energy bills. The list included such ridiculous bills as
recognition of National Train Day, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act (this bill provides
protection for rare breeds of cats and dogs), and the Monkey Safety Act.
- 12:55pm: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) said that the price at the pump isn't the only issue
at stake, but the quality of life of all Americans. Referenced Charlton Heston's famous line from "The Ten Commandments" - "Madam Speaker: Let my people vote!"

Throughout the speeches, the Representatives encouraged the people watching in the gallery and from the floor to call Speaker Pelosi's office at (202)224-3121 and tell her to allow debate on energy policy.

If your Representative was one of the ones present, call them and encourage them to keep up the good work. If not, call them and tell them that you don't get a vacation from high gas prices, so why should they get a vacation from doing the people's business.

Resources to help you talk with your Representative can be found at: www.freedomworks.org/petition/drill.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn: 1918-2008

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel prize winning Soviet dissident, died of heart failure on Sunday. His writings were critical in calling the world's attention to the oppressive Soviet regime. Read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a brilliant novel that exposed the horrific treatment of political prisoners in Stalin's labor camps.

I Love Democracy...

The House officially went into recess for the month of August at 11:23am EST, but the Republicans have refused to go home. Protesting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to adjourn the House without scheduling a vote to allow for offshore drilling, Republicans remained on the floor talking up the energy crisis and bashing Pelosi and the Democrats for leaving town with work still left to do.

This is a great piece of political theater. I'm planning on heading over after work to show some support.

Read the full story here.

Weekend Update

It's a sad day around here today. As you know, one of the big fights that I have been working on nearly the entire summer was trying to prevent passage of a massive taxpayer-funded bailout for the sub-prime mortgage industry. Unfortunately, the Senate passed the bill in a rare Saturday vote, and the President is scheduled to sign it into law this week. I am particularly disappointed that President Bush backed down from his earlier threat to veto the bill, which opened the door for its passage. At a time when the strength of will and stubbornness that defined much of his Presidency was needed he chose to back down. I guess a hell-bent Treasury Secretary and thoughts of a legacy are pretty powerful motivators. If any silver lining can be found to this story, it's that we were successful in slowing down a bill that was expected to pass with little resistance and exposed much of the corruption that has been going on in the housing industry and the U.S. Congress. Also, the final form of the bill, while not ideal, is much more limited in scope than the original bill that was proposed - something that probably would not have happened if there had been no resistance.

At times like this, when you've been busting your butt on something only to get beaten by powerful moneyed interests, it's easy to succumb to the temptation to get cynical. To a certain extent, I will admit to giving into this temptation. However, I refuse to become cynical about our great Republic. I am steadfast in my belief that the system the Founding Fathers created works. That all power in government, despite the abuses of individual members (I'm looking at you Chris Dodd), ultimately derives and is checked by the people. A big thank you to everyone who took action - our voices were definitely heard.

Now on to other, more exciting news. Last Saturday night, I was fortunate enough to see The Eagles in concert from the comfort of a luxury box at the Verizon Center. A friend of mine won the tickets on Wednesday, but couldn't make it to the concert, so she was nice enough to offer me one of them (thanks Aimee!!!). The concert was incredible. They played for a little over three hours and sounded just as good as they did in their prime. Truly one of the great American rock bands. Highlight of the show was the final encore: "Take it Easy" (my personal favorite) followed by "Desperado."

Special Guest Columnist, Sen. John McCain

Okay, I'm not that good.

Below is an op-ed piece written by Senator John McCain that was rejected by the New York Times. Just one week prior, the Times published an op-ed by Senator Barack Obama on exactly the same topic - the candidates' plan for Iraq. According to reports, NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he was not going to accept the piece as it was submitted, but added that it would be "terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."

The following is the full text of Senator McCain's rejected op-ed as posted on The Drudge Report:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Paulson Admits Bailout Money will Come from the Taxpayers

Great video of Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) getting Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, to admit that the money for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would come from taxpayers.

It's Been a Full Day

I feel like I've been running non-stop today.

This morning, I came into the office and worked until about 10:30 when the campaign staff assembled and headed over to demonstrate at a speech Al Gore was giving in D.C. about "climate change." Our intrepid band of protesters arrived at the sight of the speech and walked right in amongst the throngs who were crowding at the door for the chance to worship at the feet of their master with signs reading "DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!", "Al Gore: You Can't Have My Car", and "Why is Al Gore's Carbon Footprint So Big?". We also walked through the crowd with a collection plate for donations to help offset Al Gore's carbon footprint. The purpose of this was to bring attention to the fact that Al Gore's home consumes more energy in one month than the average American does in a year. The funny thing was, we actually got some donations. A note to all the environmentalists who generously gave to the cause: the $7.50 that you donated was sent to the Arbor Day Foundation this afternoon and will be used to plant seven and one-half trees (seriously). I know that this won't do much to help offset Mr. Gore's massive carbon footprint, but every little bit helps.

The reaction of the crowd was mixed. Some saw the humor in what we were doing and, despite the fact that we disagreed on policy, were able to laugh about it. Others were not so friendly. Personally, I was cussed out 5 times and threatened at least 3 times. My favorite response came from a particularly lovely gentleman who told me that he wanted to drill into my skull, which I thought was a rather creative (yet incredibly disturbing) response to our call for more domestic drilling.

Overall, the demonstration went well. We got some considerable media attention and (hopefully) helped get the word out about common-sense, free market solutions to the current energy crisis.

UPDATE: Americans for Prosperity, who protested alongside us, caught video of the Lincoln Towncar and 2 SUVs that transport Gore and his entourage idling in front of the hall with the A/C blasting while he was giving his speech.

After the protest, I grabbed a quick bite to eat at my favorite little hot dog stand ($2.50 for a hot dog, chips, and a drink - can't beat it) and headed back to the office for a quick change. Shedding my protester gear like Clark Kent in a telephone booth, I put on my business suit and headed up to Capitol Hill for a meeting in the offices of Minority Leader Boehner and Republican Whip, Roy Blunt. The meeting with Rep. Blunt's staff was actually in the main capitol building, which is always an impressive experience given that the majority of Congressional offices are located in office buildings surrounding the Capitol rather than in the actual building.

So, now I'm back at the office finishing up some last minute work and looking forward to a relaxing evening. Enjoy these pictures:

As Promised...Some Fun

Courtesy of the folks at Jib-Jab.

Gas Price Charts

Below is a chart showing the increase in the average price of fuel in the United States from 2002 to 2008. I have divided the chart up into two sections with the dividing line marking the 2004 Congressional elections when the Democrats regained the majority. Take note of how much more quickly gas prices increased under Democratic leadership. Just click on the chart for a larger image.

Which party's policies would make more sense for easing the pain at the pump?

Enough about gas prices, fun stuff to come in the next couple days...

Drilling's Not a Hoax

Apparently not content with Congressional approval ratings falling below 10%, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently called drilling a “hoax.” According to The Hill, Pelosi said that “this call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration [designed to] punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

Pelosi’s statement is so full of absurdities that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Maybe it would just be best to look at the facts. Currently, federal moratoria have declared 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf “off-limits” to exploration and drilling. The lifting of these moratoria could free up proven reserves as high as 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Hardly a hoax. Additionally, geologists estimate that the northern coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (which comprises just a fraction of the 19 million acre sanctuary) contains about 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil. Again, does this sound like a hoax?

This is not to say that opening these areas is the “silver bullet” that will solve all our energy woes. However, lifting the moratoria on drilling in the OCS and ANWR will provide a much-needed supplement to U.S. oil supplies until a viable economic alternative can be found and put into production.

If anything is going to be called a “hoax” it should be the energy package currently being proposed by Speaker Pelosi. Her legislation would not only punish oil companies for their so-called “idle” leases, but would force them to drill those leases as well. The terminology Pelosi uses is brilliant because it suggests that the oil companies have been given land that contains enough oil to end the energy crisis, but have refused to drill it in order to drive up their profits (curse those wicked oil companies). There’s just one tiny problem – it’s not true. Any oil field that is not producing is labeled as “idle,” meaning that there is no oil coming out of the ground. The majority of these “idle” leases are either actively being explored or simply do not contain an economically viable quantity of oil. Pelosi’s energy package would essentially force oil companies to divine oil from dry rock. I’m not sure Moses could even pull that off.

The scariest thing is that it seems that the Speaker of the House has zero understanding of basic economics. If we force the oil companies to drill for oil that doesn’t exist, then their costs will go up without yielding a product that can offset those costs. Thus, these increased costs will be passed onto the consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump. However, if we open up lands that we know contain economically viable reserves of oil, then we can actually provide some relief from high fuel prices until an alternative can be found.

Obviously, Speaker Pelosi would rather play politics than find real solutions. And she wonders why Congress’ approval ratings are so low.

Great Video on Gas Prices

From the folks at NozzleRage - I don't completely agree with their solutions, but the video is genius.

I Can't Believe They Pay Me for This!

Two days ago, one of our staff members received an email from MoveOn.org about a protest that they were planning in D.C. later that week. The basic message of the protest: gas prices are high and it's because Conservatives/Republicans/Bush/McCain are just pawns of the evil Big Oil Companies that want to rape the planet and kill puppies.

Never ones to miss a chance to have a little fun at the expense of the looney left,* several of us decided to go and join the fun. We showed up about 30 minutes before the protest was scheduled to start and mingled in with the MoveOn folks. Once the march began, we unveiled our signs, which read: "Drill! Drill! Drill!", "Buy Local: Drill American", "Campaign for American Oil", and (my favorite) "Drill? Yes We Can."

It actually took about 20 minutes for the MoveOn crowd to realize that we weren't on their side. Once they realized that they had been infiltrated, they became confused and started a mini witch-hunt for the "mole" in their organization.

To the credit of both sides, the protest remained civil. There were no physical altercations or shouting. In fact, I had a very pleasant conversation with one of the older MoveOn protesters. It had to have been a sight for the drivers who passed by: a conservative with a sign advocating an increase in domestic drilling standing next to (and laughing with) a liberal holding a sign decrying the twin evils of conservatives and big oil. Who says diplomacy is dead?

For your viewing pleasure:





*Note for my liberal friends: I use the term "looney left" to refer to the radical wing of your ideology that reacts rather than thinks about issues. I have nothing but respect for those of you who have studied the issues and decided that you agree with the liberal viewpoint; you're just wrong :-)