(See updates at bottom of post)

The word is, John McCain will declare his running mate tomorrow. I have come to terms with voting for McCain. To quote a colorful little saying of my father's, "He's a little better than the average...but the average ain't so good these days." The more I find out about Obama, the better McCain looks.

I think as long as he doesn't pick a real loser of a running mate, most conservatives like me will take a deep breath and vote for McCain on election day. The fact that a number of pro-choice candidates have been hinted at however, such as Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman, to me destroys all the positive ground McCain gained since he became the Republican's candidate.

If McCain picks Lieberman or any other pro-choice running mate, I guess I will need an oxygen tank to keep me going on Election Day!

There is one V.P. possibility that excites me: Alaska's governor Sarah Palin. She is young, energetic, pro life, pro gun, pro small business, very pro oil...what's not to like? I doubt Democrats will bring up her lack of foreign policy experience because that would just point to Obama's lack of experience too. She's a mother of 5, her oldest son enlisted in the Army; her youngest was born with Down's Syndrome. So unlike Romney, who has changed his position, she truly believes in the sanctity of life and has demonstrated that by her actions. (Just so you know, I would be just as excited by her if she were male.)

Mitt Romney would be OK with me too. His speech on faith and his concession speech last spring were outstanding. He is pro-life enough for me and I know he would defend our freedom of religion, even though I don't share his faith. Many people do not see Romney in a favorable light however.

Tim Pawlenty's name has been out for a while. He would be good. He is young, pro life, and fairly conservative, but he is hook, line, and sinker an ethanol promoter. (What can you expect in Minnesota?) He comes from humble roots, so that would be a nice contrast. Since Pawlenty was for McCain all along, there would not be the 180 degree flip flops on McCain being a good president as Biden has had to do with Obama.

Another name tossed out there is Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator from Texas. She does not excite me, but at least she isn't a Lieberman or Ridge.

Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindall would be great too, but they are just a little on the young side for most people. (Next time?) 

Any of the above would be better than a pro-choice pick.

What I don't understand is why McCain would even flirt with the idea of a pro-choice running mate? It is pretty obvious that the pro-life issue is important. To many voters it is the #1 criteria.

Eyebrows are still rising over Obama's vote on the Infant Protection Bill. Others agree that a Pro Choice Veep Equals Political Suicide, (My emphasis)

I hate to rain on John McCain's parade right after he trounced Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church forum, for which I heartily applaud him, but McCain's trial balloon consideration of a pro-choice running mate demands a response.

The prospect of an Obama presidency is so horrifying that many conservatives have temporarily put aside their misgivings about McCain to focus on defeating Obama.

They hold their noses on McCain's immigration record, his campaign finance reform zealotry and his newfound acquiescence to the propaganda narrative of environmental extremists. But they are profoundly appreciative of his tougher stance against tax increases and mindful of his undeniable superiority over Obama on foreign policy and national defense. Recent world events, including Russia's naked aggression against Georgia, magnify this already-glaring contrast.

But while national defense necessarily occupies the front burner, McCain would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives, the Republicans' most reliable voting bloc over the past three decades.

The pro life issue still has traction. Why give it away?

Because of McCain's age, the running mate becomes an even more important issue. Plus, wouldn't it be great to have a strong V.P. candidate that could step up when McCain fulfilled his term/s? 

In the meantime, I'm holding my breath and thinking, don't make a colossal blunder, McCain! 

UPDATE: After Barack Obama's speech tonight, the word on Fox News was that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty would be meeting with McCain in Ohio tomorrow. Other sources had a longer list of VP possibilities. Ugh, I hate waiting.

Friday morning UPDATE: Mitt Romney will be in Ohio, Tim Pawlenty is not the pick and is not coming to Ohio, Mike Huckabee said he was not vetted (phew), but there is mention of a private charter flight to Ohio from ALASKA! (Jay Weber) Drudge has a campaign button mock up with McCain Palin on it big as life. 

2nd Friday update: Fox News says it is not Mitt Romney. 

3rd Friday update: My hopes are dashed. Rumors of Palin being in Ohio are said to not be true. ABC says she is in Alaska and set to visit their state fair today. I suppose she could still be the pick? They could be wrong? I hope? There are other rumors that Palin has been spotted in Ohio--that a woman and 2 teens got off that Alaskan charter flight last night. The announcement will come at 11am today--at least I can exhale then.  

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I caught some of the Democratic convention last night. It was Hillary's big night. The video before she spoke was very well done and I think candidates will be using that medium more and more.

Finally it was Hillary's turn. Would she unify the party? She opened with,

I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

(As she went down her different identities list, I wondered if she would say, A proud wife too.) 

Hillary has improved her delivery style; she seemed very enthusiastic and energetic in speaking of her (and Bill's) accomplishments and experiences. If Obama wins, more than likely, she will finally get her health care plan--maybe even a Cabinet post too?  (Transcript my emphasis)

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he'll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time. Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats. And we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats.

Just think what America will be when we transform our energy agenda by creating millions of green jobs and build a new, clean energy future. Barack Obama will make sure that middle-class families get the tax relief they deserve. And I cannot wait to watch Barack Obama sign into law a health care plan into law that covers every single American.

She promised Obama would end the war--responsibly. (No longer do they talk of immediate troop withdrawal.) This issue is rather moot at this point since President Bush and the Iraqi leadership are talking the same line.

Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq responsibly and bring our troops home a first step to repairing our alliances around the world.

Best zinger of the evening: 

Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

I don't agree that Bush and McCain are hard to tell apart, but then, to someone on the outside, we all look alike. Most conservatives will be holding their noses in voting for McCain. They are hardly the same. It was a good line just the same.

She talked about the women's suffrage movement and other strong women. I thought she should have mentioned Geraldine Ferraro though. After all, Geraldine was the first female V.P. candidate, making her a potential president should she be needed. 

And after so many decades 88 years ago on this very day the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote would be forever enshrined in our Constitution.

My mother was born before women could vote. But in this election my daughter got to vote for her mother for president.

Maybe it is just because I am a mom too, but I truly did appreciate how special it must have been for her to have her mother, who was born before women had the right to vote, and her daughter both able to vote for Hillary on the presidential primary ticket. This does show how far we have come as a nation, as does having an African American as one choice on the ticket.

I can't help but wonder if Hillary's convention speech will leave attendees and Democrats wondering if they nominated the wrong candidate, just as Republicans thought after Ronald Reagan spoke at Ford's convention. The pressure is on Obama to deliver the speech of his lifetime on Thursday.

Former President Bill Clinton's speech tonight should be interesting. Will he stick to the topic assigned? Just heard on an afternoon news blurb that he has also been instructed to keep his speech to 10 minutes! 

P.S. Hillary even made light of her infamous pantsuit with a reference to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants-suit! You can tell she is a gutsy woman by her clothing selection last night. Anyone who can carry off a tangerine-coral colored pantsuit is no shrinking violet. She has been criticized about her fashion choices, but speaking as a former fashion design major, it is not the worst choice for her. She is not a size 12 or even 14. Heavier women, looking for business attire, have a very difficult time of it. If they wear a suit jacket with a skirt, they come off rather Janet Reno-ish. The pants give a more vertical line--especially if teamed with a monochromatic blouse and jacket. She is a summer in her coloring, so yellows and oranges look good on her. OK, enough of the fluff.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

So, Why do we need change? 

I listened to Michelle Obama last night. She spoke about how she and Barack came from humble roots. No trace of her for the first time I''m really proud of my country attitude. She did a nice job, but her persona last night was quite different from the Michelle of the campaign trail.

It was very clear she had wonderful parents. She spoke passionately about how they were hard working and dedicated to their family. When she spoke about them, I believe it was from her heart. From the transcript: (My emphasis throughout)

He [My dad] and my mom poured everything they had into me and Craig. It was the greatest gift a child can receive: never doubting for a single minute that you're loved, and cherished, and have a place in this world. And thanks to their faith and hard work, we both were able to go on to college. So I know firsthand from their lives — and mine — that the American dream endures.

She then spoke of Barack's background and how even though he was raised by a single mom and grandparents, they shared those same values: that you work for what you value. 

And you know, what struck me when I first met Barack was that even though he had this funny name, even though he'd grown up all the way across the continent in Hawaii, his family was so much like mine. He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities they never had themselves. And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.

I could relate to her speech. I was raised in a blue collar family. My parents did not go to college; my father did not even attend high school. I was the first in the family to go to college and they scrimped and saved to make that possible. God blessed me with fantastic parents who instilled in me the very same values that Michelle extolled.  

And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them. 

Hard work is the common thread to achievement. She then goes on to talk about how she and her husband have made sacrifices to serve their country, a country which she admits has given her much.

And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities. Because I believe that each of us — no matter what our age or background or walk of life — each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation.

Very nice. It is good to give back. But that life of public service is hardly on the same plane as joining the Peace Corps or something. The Obama's live very comfortably serving the public and are considered rich by most American people's standards. Don't get me wrong, they have every right to make money--I am all for it. I guess I just take exception to the idea that they somehow are living sacrificially now. I suppose all things are relative.

She concludes with, 

And as I tuck that little girl and her little sister into bed at night, I think about how one day, they'll have families of their own. And one day, they — and your sons and daughters — will tell their own children about what we did together in this election. They'll tell them how this time, we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming. How this time, in this great country — where a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to college and law school, and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House — we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be. (Then a pitch to vote for Barack.)

But if an African American blue collar worker (without a college education) from the south side of Chicago could produce a Princeton schooled lawyer, who is now a potential First Lady of the land, and a single mom on food stamps along with dedicated grandparents can send a son to private school, and that son goes onto Harvard and is the Democrat's candidate for president, doesn't this prove America already is the land of opportunity? There is room for improvement, of course.

Michelle acknowledged the "American Dream endures." As she summed up the reason for their success, notice that it was the simple principle of HARD WORK that got both of them to this unique moment in history.

Michelle Obama did a good job with her speech--it just did not ring true to me. I don't think what she said last night supported the need for the kind of "Change" her husband's campaign promotes.

Campaign signs of Common Values/Common Purpose abounded in the audience. I share the values of hard work and sacrifice Michelle spoke about. What I don't share is Obama's vision for our nation's future.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I am a little puzzled by this statement, since the Democrat's presidential candidate and platform are pro-abortion too.

The Roman Catholic group, Fidelis, says Barack Obama's selection of pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden to be his V.P. running mate "is a slap in the face to Catholic voters" and poses a major challenge for American Catholics.

In a press release sent out overnight, Fidelis president, Brian Burch, declared that Barack Obama has "re-opened a wound among American Catholics" by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician like Joe Biden.

According to Burch, the American Catholic bishops have made it clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. 

The article goes on to state Joe Biden's "steadfast support for legal abortion" in the US Senate. 

This same issue came up in the 2004 election when John Kerry "sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive communion." 

The Catholic group's president, Brian Burch stated, "Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters."

According to Burch, "The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as foundational and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy."

I would agree with Mr. Burch that this issue is foundational.

What I don't quite understand is why would a pro-life Catholic (or a pro-life voter from any other religion) be voting for Barack Obama--the most anti pro-life candidate? 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

The Obama Nation, a book by Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D., comes out today.

The author was on Sean Hannity last night plugging it. Corsi mentioned Obama being marketed as the next Neo from the Matrix movies--you know "The One." I thought that was an interesting idea since his campaign "borrowed" slogans from other celebrities.

Interestingly, Corsi said he has been researching this book in 2006. He figured the Democratic party would fall for Obama as their candidate without really knowing much about him. Boy, was Corsi right about that!

The Obama Nation includes topics such as Barack's connection with Rezko in Chicago, Obama's anti Israel stance, and his very anti pro life stance. It is over 380 pages long--I'm sure there is lots more.

While I am on the topic of getting to know more about Obama, this is the link to Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism editorial My Two Cents mentioned yesterday in the comments from Properly inflate your tires. Be sure to read the list of socialist programs he is pushing for.

Links: 

Wow! We don't need to drill in the US for more oil. All we have to do is properly inflate our tires*. At least that is what Obama said yesterday, Obama energy policy: 'Inflate your tires' Candidate claims oil savings would equal new production plans:

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"

Vicki McKenna played the clip of him saying that 2 times on her radio show today. Unbelievable. Take a look at the Google search of Obama inflate tires too. Lots of entertainment there. UPDATE: Cindy Kilkenny has the Youtube posted of his comments--you can see it for yourself.

I will make sure my tires are properly inflated before I go on my next road trip later this year. Bet I only have to stop for gas once or twice! ;-)

Maybe one campaign strategy for Republicans would be to just arrange Obama speaking opportunities--no teleprompter allowed though.
 

*Just imagine how our economy would improve it we properly inflated our tires AND drilled here? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

 GOPUSA's Send an email message to Congress about domestic drilling

Links: 

Last week Michelle Obama did it again. She said something that revealed who she is and how out of touch she is with the average American's economic circumstances.

The Washington Times reported that each campaign needed to rein in their surrogates:

The same day a John McCain surrogate dismissed economic woes from a nation of "whiners," Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

I would not classify Michelle Obama in the same "surrogate" category as McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm, however. McCain can dump Gramm, but Michelle Obama is part of the package. She will be First Lady if Obama is elected. Whenever she says something controversial, an image of her serving tea to an important dignitary while making "small talk" pops into my mind.

Mrs. Obama does not come across as a happy camper. I think the first time I heard her interviewed was last February when the Obamas were in town before our primary. She talked about how women struggled just to get through each day, and she included herself in that group. I was surprised by her remarks because they sounded like those of an unhappy wife.

Michelle mentioned the usual complaints: husbands go off to work and leave all the responsibility of home and children to the wife. She spoke about how she is the one who must take the kids to the doctor or stay home if they are ill, etc. At the time I thought she was not painting her husband in a very good light. To hear her talk, you would think they were impoverished and had no options to hire a baby sitter, helper, or housekeeper.

As the campaign continued, I found out the Obamas lived quite comfortably. Comfortable enough to think nothing of $600.  

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she [Michelle] said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

A reader's response to the Washington Times article summed it up well,

Someone who suggests spending the $600 rebate on earrings is not living the same way the rest of America lives.

We put our stimulus check in the bank, saving it to pay for our property taxes due in December. It required belt tightening now, but I am grateful we were able to do that. (Still wish we did not go down the stimulus road though.) 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

It is becoming more difficult to ignore the threat of Iran and its long-range (see UPDATE at bottom) missile program. Yesterday they fired 9 missiles  and I heard 4* more overnight. I found the reaction of the candidates to this eyeopening.

Launch Brings Different Reactions: 

Tehran's testing of long-range missiles Wednesday drew  markedly different responses from U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as Iran develops into a defining issue for the campaign.

Sen. Obama cited the test as further evidence of why the U.S. must engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran, while his Republican opponent called for more forceful responses, such as the development of a missile-defense system to protect U.S. allies.

"History shows us that when nations are embarked on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region...other actions besides diplomacy have to be contemplated and taken," Sen. McCain ... 

From US News, Iran Tests Missiles Able To Reach Israel:

McCain Warns Against "Second Holocaust" The CBS Evening News interviewed Sen. John McCain, "The Iranians are testing these missiles not because of action on the part of the Israelis, in my view. This is part of a calculated plan, developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."

McCain told NBC Nightly News, "Hopefully, this event, it will serve as a catalyst that will finally gel all of the different factors that have been out there that will allow us then to act with our friends and allies in a most effective fashion and modify Iranian behavior, but we cannot allow a second Holocaust."

Obama Calls For "Direct Negotiations" ABC World News reported Sen. Barack Obama said in reaction to the missile tests, "The United States has to gather up others in the region, as well as internationally, to apply pressure on Iran. But it's very difficult for us to do so when we haven't shown a willingness to engage in the sort of direct negotiations with Iran that would give them carrots and sticks for a change in behavior." The CBS Evening News reported Obama "said what is needed is direct diplomacy and the threat of tougher sanctions to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Obama wants to talk. Talk to a nation that says the Holocaust never happened and that has set their sites on eliminating Israel.

Neville Chamberlain thought he could talk the madman Hitler out of his designs to rule all of Europe and the United States too. We know how that worked out for Neville.

*Was it 3 or 4? Seeing is not believing. Check out Michelle Malkin's Fauxtography-fest 2008! and see for yourself. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

UPDATE: Test exhibits no long-range rocket 'Same old Boring Shahab 3'. Not only were the pictures not what they seemed, but the Iranians' story too! Be sure to read all of the linked article. Here are some highlights:

Iran's missile test last week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, said a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials said the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put Iran in striking distance of much of the Middle East, including Israel - as close as 650 miles from Iran - as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

... Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length-to-width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea's Nodong-1, according to the blog.

..."Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with [last] week's tests," said David Wright, co-director of the Union's Global Security Program.

..."We don't believe this exercise to have been an illusion," he [Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell] said Friday. Still, he added, "They were not testing new technologies or capabilities, but rather firing off old equipment in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors and escalate tension in the region. That is not the way to win the trust and confidence of the international community."

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links:  

Yesterday I heard someone say that Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls by 33% by mid-July. I checked it out and sure enough, it was true. His lead narrowed to just 2% by election day though.

Seeing as Obama isn't ahead of McCain by leaps and bounds, yet the media acts like he was already elected, I wondered how this election compared to other elections. (Although nothing about this election is typical!)

I found Gallup did a great job of analyzing the past presidential elections in, July Leader Lost in 6 of Last 9 Competitive U.S. Elections:

In 9 of the past 15 U.S. presidential elections, the candidate who was leading in Gallup polling roughly four months before the election ultimately won the popular vote for president. However, narrowing the set of races to the nine that were competitive, the early polling proved prescient in only three of those.

With Barack Obama leading John McCain by no more than six percentage points in Gallup's early July polling, the 2008 race currently fits best into the "competitive" category. Given that assumption, Gallup's election trends from a comparable point in previous presidential election years offer no strong indication of whether Obama or McCain is headed for victory in November.

Kerry was ahead at this time in 2004, and pundits said it was the end of the Republicans. Election Day told another story. Check out the graphs and charts for past elections on the Gallup site.

With Iran testing 9 missiles yesterday and more overnight and gas prices rising (he says prices just went up too quickly), I cannot think Obama will hold the lead for long.

The more Obama goes off-script (remember the asthma breathalyser, ventilator stumbles), the more he flip-flops (I support the gun ban, dumping church / pastor, getting out of Iraq in 16 mo., funding his campaign, etc.) the more his poll numbers will be affected. The presidential debates should be interesting. 

Fairly Conservative showed "McCain pulling ahead in Missouri" by 2%* 5% yesterday and Obama losing ground to undecided in New Jersey. I would think the Obama erosion will hit other states too.

A lot can happen in 4 months. Iran's current volatility may just be the dose of reality voters need to make a concrete choice come November.....time will tell. 

*Correction 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

I just heard on the news today (radio) that John McCain said, "Under my administration,  Osama Bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed." 

I like a little decisiveness as opposed to being wishy-washy, especially when it comes to Osama.

Barack Obama on the other hand...isn't. 

This contrast in approach, along with their differing agenda on US oil and taxes, gives me hope. Keep it up, McCain.

Vive la Difference!

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here's goal is to have 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions this fall.

Links:

President Bush urge[d] Congress to end ban on offshore oil drilling today: (My emphasis)

"Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction," Bush said.

About 60% of Americans support government moves to encourage more oil drilling and refinery construction as a way to combat soaring energy prices -- but the same number also profess to be in favor of conservation, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday. [We should drill and conserve?]

The Presidential candidates are lining up along party lines on opposite sides of the domestic drilling coin: 

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain who announced his position this week after opposing it in the past, increasingly support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

Barack Obama who is running for president, and fellow Democrats, oppose it over environmental concerns and say such action would have little immediate impact on fuel prices.

Despite the President's plea, the Democrats in Congress' Appropriations Committee blocked the measure from coming for a vote today. So the President proposes, Congress disposes. No help from Congress.

Some Democrats did propose that government take over some refineries though!

House Republicans tried to lift the ban before, "Time after time in recent years, drilling advocates have been unable to get the votes in Congress. When Republicans controlled Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives agreed to overturn the ban on offshore drilling, but the measure died in the Senate."  The ban has been in effect since 1981.

Bush admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

With 67%* of American voters supporting more domestic drilling, what are we to do with our Congress that is so unresponsive? How about signing the Drill Here. Drill Now, so we can Pay Less petition?

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Click DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS. to sign the petition and see the latest links to related news articles (updated every day). 

*Latest Rasmussen poll 

Links:

Oil companies have made a lot of money and some in Washington think they should get a bigger cut. The Senate recently tried to snatch some of those profits with their attempt to resurrect the Windfall Profits Tax bill. Thankfully, the Senate Republicans stopped that piece of legislation ...for now.

I am sure we will see that tax tried again. After all, Obama is campaigning, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Generally, Democrats seem to think that oil companies just do not have the right to keep their profits. They don't seem to have that same aversion to other corporations' profits though. I heard on Jay Weber recently that oil companies made about 7.5% in profits.

How does that compare to other industry profits? Weber said Banking made 20%, Pharmaceuticals 18%, Insurance 11%, and Beverage/Tobacco 9.4%. So oil companies 7.5% is excessive and these other industries are not? Does it seem there is a double standard here?

Weeks ago, Sean Hannity broke down the profit per gallon of gas that oil companies received. We're paying around $4/gal. Oil companies get about $0.08/gal. Taxes on a gallon are around $0.19/gal for Fed. and State, I think. Again, oil companies seem to be getting the lesser amount.

How much profit does an oil company like Exxon make? Mark Perry, on Seeking Alpha, a Stock Market Opinion/Analysis site shows that last year they had pre-tax profits of $70.61 billion. Wow, that is a lot of money!

Some of you might be muttering to yourself how unfair it is that these filthy rich companies are making all the money and WE (via taxes to government) should be getting some of it.

But here is a figure the news media does not talk about very much; the amount Exxon pays in taxes. Perry includes an interesting chart showing the profits vs. taxes: $40.6 billion in after tax profits, $30 billion in taxes. Exxon averaged over the past 3 years to pay $27 billion in taxes each year. He compares that to regular taxpayers contribution to the IRS:

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

This was not enough for the Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) though. They wanted more. 

No doubt about it. We have high energy prices and future prices don't look any better, but taxing oil companies more will not lower the price at the pump!  Would you want to work harder to increase production only to have more of your profit taken away?

FYI:  Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move 

Links:

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

Links:

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

What's in a name? Plenty.

In case you missed this, the Friday edition of the Detroit News printed this headline, "Clinton, Osama meet to discuss unity"

The paper claims it was a mistake, but the error appeared on "about 45,000 newspapers distributed north and west of downtown Detroit." 

Appropriate apologizes made and accepted. I wonder if the first copy has made it to eBay yet? 

Links: