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 :-)

trying to fit the world inside a picture frame

Photos now up at my photo blog.

More to come...