No Collaboration

The opening shots of the war for the soul of the Republican Party have been fired. . . by the moderates. Not two days after the election, McCain aides are viciously attacking Sarah Palin in a move that seems to me very preconceived, as if this was their contingency plan all along if they lost. Regardless of the validity of their claims (I am skeptical) these attacks have nothing to do with Palin's shopping habits or her intelligence. These attacks are coming this quickly because she's a right wing conservative. The moderates are panicked. They need a scape goat other than McCain in order to keep their grip on the party going into Obama's administration. Palin is an up and coming conservative star ripe for the targeting. If the moderates can succeed in painting the election as a referendum on Palin, they can deflect blame for the plight of the Republican Party.

This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:

"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."

Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?

"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."

This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.

This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.

No Collaboration!

Always Back the Other Guy Against A Communist

This is it. Hopefully my fellow citizens don't force me to question my faith in Democracy today, but seriously, if we elect Obama, the electorate is too dumb to be free. There's nothing as tragic as a people willingly shackling themselves. If only Parliament knew that all they had to do was bribe the colonies with other people's money and we'd dance our way willingly into subjugation. We'd even call it "salvation". McCain may be an awful candidate, but he fits my general rule of thumb: Always back the other guy against a communist.

My Closing Argument

Barack Obama likes to frame this election as a turning point. A moment to "make history" in his words. He prognosticates that this is a crucial choice we're making that will determine the future of America. He's right. Tomorrow Americans will cast their vote to decide what kind of America they will live in. Will we be a free capitalist society that understands that with freedom comes risk, that we have a right to pursue happiness, but government should not attempt to guarantee it? Or will we accept the reassuring embrace of the State? Will we sacrifice freedom and leave our well being in the hands of a supposedly benevolent central government? Its a simple choice. Capitalism or socialism. Freedom or totalitarianism. Liberty or tyranny.

John McCain is not a perfect candidate. Many of his views ring with a populism that is little different than Obama's. I admittedly swore to myself long ago that I would never vote for the man. My sheer rage at the Republican Party in nominating him is difficult to express in words. I was determined to punish the GOP by withholding my vote this cycle. I believed John McCain would shatter the conservative base within the party and set the conservative movement back years. This is still true, though the Palin nomination has assuaged some of my fears. But while McCain may destroy the GOP as a conservative party, Obama will destroy America as a relatively conservative country. I feel I don't have the luxury this year of a vote on principle. Barack Obama is too dangerous. He is an admitted socialist and the damage he could do with a Democrat House and 60 friendly Senators is incalculable. A mere cursory examination of his past words and affiliations reveals Obama to be a radical leftist. He sees America as a guilty society who's "salvation" can only be achieved through collectivization and redistribution of wealth. His domestic policy is premised on the idea that the American system of capitalism is inherently unfair and must be remedied with an increasingly powerful and intrusive central government freed from the shackles of Constitutional limitations. His foreign policy is premised around the notion that America is the cause of the worlds problems, that we are too powerful and must submit to the wishes of the UN and the international community whose intentions are not compatible with America's best interests.

Its a shame that my case for John McCain is all about Barack Obama, but this election sadly is all about Barack Obama. McCain's involvement is only peripheral, at least for me. As Thomas Sowell put it, the only man who can get me to vote for John McCain is Barack Obama. It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has served up such an inept challenger to the closest thing to a marxist ever hoisted upon a presidential ticket. America should have a choice between two contrasting world views, if only we had nominated a clear, conservative voice. Barack Obama should be facing a 49 state landslide. Instead America faces a second "New Deal" from a man who has openly lamented the failure of the courts to impose socialism upon us. Just as I voted against John Kerry in 2004, I find myself voting not for John McCain, but against Barack Obama. 4 years of bloated Federal budgets and apparent wholesale abandonment of conservative principles have severely jaded me, but I know that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I know a McCain administration will enrage me on a regular basis, but an Obama administration will probably lead me to question my faith in humanity. I'd much rather regret McCain nominating another O'Conner than Obama nominating another Ginsberg.

So America will have to decide. Liberty or Statism. A Constitutional Republic or an almost theocratic socialism that hearkens back to the days of the Social Gospel with all the fascistic tendancies that come with it. While our current situation is immeasurably better than the Great Depression, Obama seeks to take us back to it, or at least back to the Depression mindset. So we will make a choice forced upon us on Tuesday: Freedom or insulation. The uncertainty of adult life, or the safety of childhood. The freedom to fail, or freedom from responsibility. Individuality or collectivization.

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, as an Italian chap once put it. This is what we face Tuesday. So if you're a McCain supporter, go vote tomorrow. Don't be surprised when the media tries to discourage you and paints the early returns as precursors to a landslide. They're uneasy. Its not supposed to be this close. If you're an Obama supporter, I'd ask that just because you're afraid to be an adult, don't force the rest of us to be children. However, in the spirit of non partisanship, I wish you a pleasant day as you vote yourself a share of the National Treasury. Unless, that is, you work for ACORN, in which case I wish you a safe trip as you attempt to vote in every County in Ohio.

Why Labels Are Important

Barack Obama appears to be poised to win the office of the Presidency with a socialist platform. How did this happen? The United States of America smashed socialism decades ago, at home and abroad. Why then, are we now embracing it? I think the answer is that we're not embracing it. We're embracing a candidate, Barack Obama. I don't believe that most Americans are aware of Barry's radicalism. America is a center-right country. Barry knows this and has adjusted his rhetoric accordingly. He says he'll give 95% of Americans a tax cut. Sounds pretty conservative doesn't it? Except that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes. Giving a "tax credit" to those who don't pay taxes is socialism, welfare, redistribution of wealth, whatever you prefer to call it, except until recently, no one (at least no one connected to the McCain campaign) has called it that. Only during the final month of the campaign does McCain take off the gloves and attempt to warn the American people:

"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in a radio address.

Way to go, but where was this in June? Obama isn't anything fresh or new. He's running on over a centruy of failed policy that is responsible for untold misery and stagnation. He embodies a radical leftism many in America thought we'd defeated and left for dead in the seventies. This should have been a simple exercise for the McCain campaign, the Obama camp is seemingly run by William Jennings Bryan and the reanimated corpse of Friedrich Nietzsche. These ideas and ideologies were long ago discredited. However, McCain has waited until almost the last minute to point this out. If he loses, he can only blame himself.

Was He Waiting for Schieffer to do It?

If Barry Obama is elected on November 4th, he will be the most radical, left wing President in American history. This will happen without the opposition candidate pointing this out to the American electorate. Think all those "undecided independents" would be leaning toward Obama after last night's debate if McCain had detailed how he was a socialist? Johnny is so used to attacking Republicans and conservatives, that he looks lost when dealing with someone truly deserving of his ire: a left wing socialist.

Last night's debate was McCain's perfect opportunity to paint Obama with a socialist brush. It wouldn't have been hard. The debate was centered on economics, McCain had every chance. He properly mentioned Obama's association with Ayers and ACORN, but he didn't tie it all together. Why did Ayers support Obama at the start of his political career? Because Obama is a radical socialist, in line with the views of the SDS and the Weathermen. Why did Obama work for ACORN? Because they actively promote socialism in America. These were softballs lobed to McCain that he didn't swing at. McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber and Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, but once again he didn't tie it together. He never used the "s" word. He never explained why Obama's comment was damaging, what it said about his ideological beliefs. I could be wrong, but I never heard him use the word "redistribution" when talking about Obama, he should have. He should have quoted Marx, that's essentially what Obama was doing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is what "spread the wealth around" means. There is a dangerously high probability that we're going to elect a radical socialist to the office of the Presidency and no one in the McCain campaign or the Republican Party is warning the American people. Why the hell do we vote for them?

One Day, We'll Wake Up, And We'll Be In Canada

Much can happen between now and November, but after watching the debate last night, I think the election has become Obama's to lose. Palin did her job slowing the Obama/Biden, but McCain needed to win last night in his favorite "town hall" format to make up ground. He didn't. He said some good things and Obama misrepresented his leftism as usual, but the biggest thing I came away with wasn't a good line or a blatent lie, it was that Obama looked young and McCain looked old. I'm a political junkie, if that's what I came away with, I can only imagine what the average American with a 30 second political attention span thinks.

Is conservatism pretty much dead now in American politics? There was time after time last night when McCain just accepted the liberal premise of the questions and suggested big government solutions. I believe if we had a genuine conservative running who could articulate our positions and challenge the assumptions of the questioners and public at large, we'd be winning this election. Instead we have McCain letting Barry get away with calling health care a "right". If we're going to let liberals make up new rights that defy the actual concept of the "natural right" that America is based upon, what's the point of conservatives continuing to call the Republican Party home? What if McCain wins? How much better than Obama will that actually be? Sure it will put off America's participation in the slow decline of the West for another decade, but after that? Its inevitable without a strong conservative party. We'd be there right now if not for the Reagan 80's. If McCain can't challenge Obama on an issue as fundamental as the nature of rights, can we trust him to challenge Pelosi and Reid? Can we trust the Republicans in Congress? They just helped pass a decidedly nonconservative government bailout.

We need a seachange, no matter who wins this election. I feel that we've ceded back much of the ground we gained after Reagan's victory, and its our own fault. The conservative cause needs new, articulate, true believing, advocates. Neocons are valuable allies, but we've let them seize the Party, and the concept of economic libertarianism has suffered as a result. We can have thousands of bloggers and radio hosts advocating real conservatism, but until we get politicians actively promoting it to the public at large, we will continue to lose ground, even when we win.

Why I'll Vote For McCain (Drunk)

French President (supposed conservative, for France I guess) Nicolas Sarkozy:

"We want a new world to come out of this. . . We want to set up the basis for a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not speculators.''

By "capitalism" he means "heavy regulation of the private sector by an intrusive central government with little knowledge of economics or understanding of the 'invisible hand'", guided by "questionable --socialistic-- political motives"

McCain might (please God) balk at this new order the Europeans desire. Obama will embrace it, as well as the rest of their statist ideologies.

Damned Right I'm an Angry, White, Male!

Obama critic and author of "The Obama Nation" Jerome Corsi has been detained by authorities in Kenya:

"Corsi had promised a news conference today that would 'expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.'"

Hmm, combine this with the millions of dollars Obama is allegedly receiving from abroad, and you begin to wonder who is backing his meteoric rise to power. Personally it frightens me a bit that a man who would be the most liberal President since LBJ appears to have such foreign support. D0 we really know anything about this guy? He's a relative unknown with socialist, if not marxist leanings, who has unknown, possibly foreign, backers behind the scenes. Do the American People know this? Is anyone trying to tell them? Do we know the kind of "change" Obama represents? Good Lord! The Democrats nominate a collectivist with more backing abroad than in the States, and all the Republicans throw against him is John McCain?

If Obama is elected, the resulting 4-8 years of socialism wrought on America will be a black mark not only upon the Democrats, but upon the spineless Republicans who were too unprincipled and cowardly to oppose McCain and then speak out against Obama. Why should we vote for you? Even in the minority role, you won't speak out. The reason I'm even considering voting for your nominee is because the other side is rolling out a Maoist. Big changes (1976-80-esque) need to take place in the Republican Party. Even if we somehow redefeat socialism in America, this will be far too close. Remember when wackjob leftists lost in 40+ State landslides? Do today's idiot GOP leaders know how hard the Buckleys, and Hayeks, and Goldwaters, and Reagans struggled on the fringes of American politics to pull this country back from the collectivist abyss? Now we just give all those gains back? We let them create a financial crisis, we let them blame us for it, we let them declare it a new "Great Depression", and we not only let them decide we need "New Deal" type government intervention, we collude with them to do it?!

Its not until now that I understand what it was like for men like Hayek and Buckley, what its like to be a lone voice in the wilderness, "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"

Friedrich Hayek, Where Art Thou?

It seems likely that both candidates will miss the vote on the trillion dollar bailout plan that may be set for Friday. I understand Barry's reluctance. On one hand, this is the massive government intervention that liberal socialist types have wet dreams about. On the the other, Obama is trying to keep America in the dark about his radical socialist leanings.

McCain has no excuse. If he wants to keep saying that he was on the front lines of the Reagan Revolution, he needs to show up and vote against this bill. When Obama and the media rip him for it, educate the voters. Tell them why government intervention doesn't work. Tell them that these mismanged corporate behemoths created by Congress don't deserve the American tax payer's hard earned money. Tell them that Keynesian economics have been long ago discredited. Can't McCain understand that most of his newfound strength in the polls is due to the appeasment of conservatives with the Palin pick? I've been so happy with Governor Palin, that I almost forgot that John McCain isn't a conservative. Every time I grab McCain's olive branch, he whacks me in the face with the tree. I feel like an idiot teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is cheating on her, but stays with him anyway.

If I had any self esteem, I'd tell McCain to screw himself, but he keeps telling me I'm pretty.

Did Obama Ever Vet Himself?

Sorry about the light blogging as of late (especially at this critical juncture in the campaign), but work's been crazy and its College Football season, enough said.

Now some observations:

Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:

"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.

Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.

Is Barry Shaving Points?

Has anyone else noticed that Barry Obama has no idea what he's doing on the campaign trail? The Clinton machine's loss to this guy will go down as one of the biggest blunders in American political history. For a man with a religious following and fawning media coverage, he can't seem to pull away from an uninspiring moderate who is despised by his own base.

As of late, Obama has decided that he needs to hammer McCain on foreign policy and the Iraq war. Smart! Draw attention to the war the media has decided to ignore to your advantage! Obama will lose to McCain on the issue of foreign policy experience every time, because he has none. No matter how Obama paints McCain or spins his own policy positions, in the end all he is doing is drawing attention to McCain's best issues and the successful yet largely ignored war in Iraq. One of Obama's handlers needs to get a hold of him and tell him this is not the Democrats' issue anymore. In 2005, maybe, but not now. That's why the main stream media is ignoring it. I know Obama was crowned a political genius long ago, but he looks like an amateur to me. Also, I don't know who's making decisions on what his staff says in public, but blaming John McCain for the escalation of the Russian invasion of Georgia makes you sound silly. Almost as silly as taking credit for the imaginary cease fire. Someone needs to compile a list modeled on Warmlist that records everything Obama and his supporters have given Barry credit for, or claimed he can do (like lowering the sea level or transforming Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into Gordon Brown).

I don't understand how a campaign can be so inept. Barry should thank his lucky stars that the media is covering for him.

Why I Binge Drink

Obama is now leading McCain by 9 points according to Gallup. In a related story, I've lost my faith in humanity. I wonder if its those Berlin voters who've pushed him over the top?

All the News That Fits to Our Ideological Agenda

SHOCK: THE NEW YORK TIMES DECIDES NOT TO TELL THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY!!

Via Matt Drudge, the NYT has rejected an editorial by John McCain in response to an editorial Barry Obama wrote about his position on Iraq less than a week ago. I'm personally flabbergasted. I can't believe the Times would risk its reputation of objectivity and even handedness. If they keep this up they might become known as left wing advocates posing as journalists. People might even believe that the last Republican they endorsed for President was Dwight Eisenhower.

On the other hand, I was surprised that the Iraq war was still going on. I never see anything about it in the Times anymore. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it anymore unless they get an editorial by Barry Obama('s staff)? A curious thought to ponder. They couldn't write enough about it in 2005. Are there no more Jack Murtha quotes comparing our soldiers to the imaginary Mongols John Kerry spoke of while he was in the SDS? I'd better stop there, if we delve into that, its enough for two or three more posts. Ah, you wacky libs. You're like the gift that keeps giving, or maybe the guy who keeps kicking you in the junk and taking your wallet.

Back to the point, I'm sure its just a matter of time before the Times corrects this error and regains its impeccable journalistic integrity. Otherwise people are going to begin to think they're just a mouth piece for the Democrat Party and that the NYT's whole reason for existence is to push a liberal agenda, not to report "all the news that's fit to print". But that's just crazy, right?

VP Blues

Please John McCain, don't put Mike Huckabee on the ticket. I'm almost (almost) resigned to voting for you, most likely in a drunken stupor, but if you put the Huckster in the VP slot, I'm done. Adios muchacho, not a chance in hell that I'd vote for the liberal Republican dream ticket. It would be Ford and Rockefeller all over again, and had I been alive in 1975, that would have really pissed me off. I'm sure, however, that as usual McCain will take the path of "what will piss off conservatives the most" and choose the Huckster, or Lindsey Graham (whom I despise perhaps more than John McCain), or Joe Lieberman (whom I believe is a good man, but clearly a liberal).

In that line of thought however, I don't think I'd want Mitt Romney on the ticket either. Two reasons A: I don't want him tainted by the horror that's sure to be the McCain administration. I don't want to see Mitt or Bobby Jindal have to trot out before the camera and toe the administration line on what ever liberal crap McCain wants to do. It will kill me a little bit inside. B: I don't think I'm asshole enough (yet) to root for McCain's death for 4 years so Mitt can take over. I'm just not yet comfortable with wishing death on someone at this point in my life. Give me time. In a couple of years I'm sure I'll be so cynical and jaded (especially after a McCain administration) that I'll have no scruples with hoping a politician would die, but I'm just not ready yet.

I guess best case scenario, McCain chooses a well known conservative with no real political future to be ruined by his association with the administration. Maybe a Tom Delay type? I'd be happy with that. (McCain would NEVER do it however).

You know what? Screw it. Let's just get Mike Gravel and be done with it.

Another Reason Not to Vote for John McCain

Al "Manbearpig" Gore is calling for a Kennedyesque national effort to "produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years". I've already documented how fascistic I think this "Apollo Program" line of thought is, but there's another nugget in this article:

"The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change."

Does Mr. McCain realize how aghast conservatives are when they hear a radical, anti capitalist, greeny like Al "Manbearpig" Gore say their presidential candidate is on the right track when it comes to global warming? Beyond the right, how about an average American who thinks the global warmists and environmentalists are wackjobs? What's he going to think? You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to realize that Al Gore is bat shit crazy. Unfortunately, I'm sure McCain will be consistent and divine how conservatives want him to act and do the opposite. Expect to hear McCain refer to Gore as a "pioneer", or a "great American", or some such drivel in the coming days. Meanwhile, China chuckles to itself as it takes another shot of oil and grabs the reigns of history.

At Least He Doesn't Look Up to Karl Marx

John McCain is making steady progress in his effort to completely alienate every conservative Republican voter. In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, McCain named Teddy Roosevelt as his "conservative model". The only problem is that Teddy Roosevelt isn't a conservative. In fact quite the opposite, he was a self described "progressive", i.e. a liberal. He was a foreign policy hawk to be sure, but progressives were much less dovish than modern day liberals.

Roosevelt crusaded against big business and was a zealous regulator. His "Square Deal" was the ancestor of the "New Deal" FDR would introduce 25 years later. The government took control of railroad shipping rates, which in part led to their downturn in later years as they faced competition from trucking and airplanes. Roosevelt took an active role in attacking major American corporations, pushing the courts to submit to the the wishes of the executive branch when it came to antitrust suits.

In 1912 Roosevelt formed the "Progressive Party" whose platform included heavy regulation of industry, required health care for industrial workers, regulation of campaign donations, and early forms of Medicare, unemployment programs, and social security. It advocated the Imperial German model of cooperation between the government and business. It called for government ownership of remaining coal and oil fields, and for a progressive income and inheritance tax. This is McCain's conservative model.

Does McCain actually admire him for the reasons I've listed? I know he agrees with at least some of what Roosevelt stood for (Damn Oil Companies! Patriotism over profits!), but more likely he's ignorant of most of Roosevelt's policies and proposals. He probably just knew Teddy was a conservationist and a hawk and thought to himself, "why that's me!" Still its disheartening to have the Republican candidate point to a big government liberal as his "conservative model". Its like pointing to Jenna Jameson as a model of chastity and virtue.

I May Have To "Trip Acid And Vote 4 McCain"

Found a great blog via Ann Coulter: Get Drunk And Vote 4 McCain. Now that I think about it, that's the only way I can vote for him. Come November, I'm going to have to get hammered, I mean real hammered. I may have to go on a three to sixteen day bing. I don't want to remember voting for him or the hysterical crying that I'm sure will ensue once I really come to grips with what I have done. Hell, I don't think I'll want to remember his administration if he's elected. I'm not sure what the shelf life of my liver is anymore. I'm not sure I can handle a 4 year bender.

Every freedom loving American who thinks they can hold their nose enough to vote for McCain (I'm still not sure on this by the way) because Obama will probably cede Canada to Iran should get together and take some shots of Wild Turkey, or say, pure absinthe, and do the deed. We're going to need each other's support, its as close to a suicide pact as I hope I ever come. Back in college, some of my buddies and I got together to party and watch the 2004 returns, but those were returns, we were celebrating (this is back in the day when we thought if Bush can just get a second term, he and Carl "permanent majority" Rove will unleash their secret conservative master plan, which turned out to be amnesty and deficit spending). This time we'll have to get drunk in the morning or several days earlier so we can vote and then curl up in the fetal position and sob.

Its going to be tough, but we'll just have to "lay back and think of America", so to speak. We'll use Everclear to try and drown the shame.

Will the Real John McCain Please Stand Up?

Barack Obama is certainly a presidential candidate in the mold of Jimmy Carter, and its nice to see McCain pointing that out. Speaking in Houston yesterday, McCain said this:

"He supports new taxes on oil producers. He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big-idea tool - and a lot of good it did us. I'm all for recycling - but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s."

This is a topic that Republicans need to hammer Obama on. His energy policy is insane. He resembles Carter on issues from energy to national defense. However, McCain seems to think we're too stupid to remember what he said last week:

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits"

In the same interview he said that oil companies should "absolutely" return some of their profits. Is this not a call for a "windfall profits tax"? McCain's position on oil profits sounds a lot like Obama's to me. Which McCain is the real McCain? The one bashing Obama's Carteresque energy policy in Houston or the one espousing the same policies in an NBC interview? Why did we nominate this guy again?

McCain Briefly Pretends to Understand Economics

Finally John McCain has said something I can support. It is definitely time to begin drilling for oil off the coasts. If China and Cuba can do it, I don't see why we can't. Senator McCain plans to say this in a speech today:

"we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

Great to hear him seemingly support market driven solutions to this problem, but sadly, it couldn't last. Lest conservatives actually begin to believe he had a sane grasp on the concepts of economics and the workings of the market, he also plans to say this about oil speculation:

"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk,"

Every time I try to grab his olive branch, he hits me in the face with the tree. Let's take a look and the Senator's complete ineptitude when it comes to the principles of a free(ish) market. This "reckless wagering" is actually a risk taken by speculators on the future price of oil. Not only is this done perfectly legally with all sorts of other commodities, it helps protect supply. Why do prices go up? High demand or low supply, in this situation a combination of both. When someone speculates on a barrel of oil, they are betting that the price will be higher in the future. They are betting that demand will be higher and/or the supply will be lower. At a future time, they plan on introducing the oil they have purchased back into the market when prices are higher. While this may drive up price now, it drives down price later. Contrary to the Senator's statements, this is absolutely "productive commerce". It doesn't "distort the market", it protects supply by holding reserves until they are most needed. There are no "rational limits" in a free market, there are the laws of supply and demand. They may be harsh, but they work for a reason, and when the government tries to control them, the problem is exacerbated. The good Senator is right to advocate increasing the supply, (as soon as the government even announces that restrictions on drilling will be lifted speculators will begin hedging their bets and selling, thus increasing supply and driving down cost) but punishing speculators will only hurt America in the long run.

Everything Is Worth What John McCain Says It Is

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits."

Thus said John McCain this morning on the "Today Show". That sound you hear is the last of his conservative supporters cringing. Why, pray tell, Senator, do oil companies have to be more "participatory in alternate energy"? Shouldn't oil companies be concerned with oil? Shouldn't their business be finding, pumping, refining, and selling more oil? What gives you the right to tell any privately owned company what they "have got to be" doing? The government is going to force the oil companies to develop the technology that will put them out of business? Has the Republican party descended back into the days of Teddy Roosevelt? Are we going to go Trust busting? Aren't you the supposed conservative candidate from the supposed conservative party? Now we advocate "sharing profits"? Sounds an awful lot like socialism. There's more:

Although the GOP presidential candidate didn't address the question of raising taxes on oil companies, he said the companies "absolutely" should return some profits to consumers. "And they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," he said.

He's basically advocating price fixing without actually fixing the price. Oil companies can charge whatever they want to, but then they've got to return excess profits to consumers. Who decides what amount of profit is too much? In the past the market has dictated this. A business charges whatever it can up to a point where demand starts falling. This is why apartment complexes strive for 5% vacancy instead of 0%. They want to balance on the line between maximum profit and pricing themselves out of the market. This is not only good business, it protects supply. Artificially lowering prices leads to shortages. Just look at the results of rent control in major cities.

Why should oil companies worry about reducing our dependence on foreign oil? This isn't their job. Their job is get the stuff out of the ground and to the consumer. If we would let them do what they're best at - exploiting oil fields - they would reduce our supply on foreign oil. Unfortunately they are unable to do so because our government stands in the way. If he truly cared about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the good Senator would be addressing this instead of telling the media exactly what they want to hear.

A part of me wants the oil companies to call Washington's bluff. "Screw you! You say we're evil, money grubbing, unpatriotic, fine. We're shutting down American operations and moving Corporate HQ to the Bahamas. Good luck." I wonder if that is what it would take for America to see the wisdom of Publilius Syrus: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"