In his Stephanopolous interview, Obama claimed to have considered military service, he said he reflected on it upon graduation from high school - there was no war on, so what caused him to sit down and give it so much thought was that he signed up for Selective Service.

But he graduated high school in 1979, and the SS was instituted by Carter in 1980.

Obviously the entire story is a contrivance. And he said it with such earnestness. Here's what this episode tells us: He is a natural born liar, and he is surrounded by idiots. No one can keep him on a leash short enough to avoid colossal blunders like this one. Clearly, he's trying to pump up his 'natural security credentials' and his patriotism. So he tells a naked lie. McCain gets his arms broken, and the closest this fake comes to military service is lying about having considered it 30 years ago.

TOTA

It matters not to the left that 80+% of Alaskans approve of Palin's work. Alaska had been considered' in play' in the election, which means it was a relatively moderate state. If it was split 50/50 Dem/Rep, that means that more than 60% of democrats are overlooking party, overlooking her 'archaic' position on abortion, and saying, "I'm man or woman enough to admit that someone from the other party is doing a damn fine job.'

Not the movement left. They are consumed with hatred for Sarah. They see in her a possible resurgence of conservatism, a possible start to turning back the decades of liberal ideas dominating government, the arts, academia, and even the press. If she is nearly as popular with Americans as she is with Alaskans, most people will just turn off the old media if it craps on her. The leftist media will have to give her a fair shake, so her message will get out. And that will be the end of leftism as a political force in America, at least for decades if not generations. Sarah can get away with saying much more, and saying it much more bluntly than a man could. We already know she is a caring person (except for the lunatic left, they think she is either stupid or cruel for birthing her child Trig after she knew about his Down's Syndrome. The people making this argument are numerous, and to a person they are mentally ill).
I've watched hours of interviews with Mrs. Palin, she is sharper than any politician I have ever seen. When she answers questions, she treats opposing arguments with the right tone, puts exactly the right emphasis where it should be, and leaves no necessary argument unvoiced. She is going to do extremely well with this week's ABC interview, and on October 2nd, before upwards of 30 million people, she is going to beat poor Joe Biden like a drum. People will pity him, with good reason. The main thing Sarah needs to worry about is beating him so badly that it evens out due to widespread sympathy for Biden. For this and so many other reasons, not the least of which is her obvious goodness, virtue, and beauty, the movement left HATES her.

HATE

The question is often asked, 'If you could go back in time and murder Hitler before he came to power, would you do so?' You can bet that many on the left view Sarah as similarly monstrous. Yes, that is how deranged they are. Consider: To countless abortion radicals, a country where women are forced to put their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them might as well be a giant concentration camp, the nexus of repressive evil in the modern world. Similarly, some view her as a monster because she would help bring millions of Americans out of dependence and to self-reliance, real pride, without the government carrying them every step of the way. The government can instill pride through educating and preparing people for life - meaningful pride is found in living it well as a free and independent person. That satisfaction is the enemy of the left, people who experience it do not desire to become clients of the state, which is all the left really has to offer, before the country turns to mush and the bombs fall.
Sarah repulses all of their plans, and their reaction is precisely what we would expect.

But these hypocrites cannot force Sarah to do anything. She is a lioness who will eat them - and their lunch. The movement left would love to lock up people like her, put them behind barbed wire. Incredibly, a sitting congressman, Dick Armey, said as much at a CPAC conference in the 1990s. He's right - this is what the left is fond of doing whenever they take uncontested power. They lock up those who would stir up dissent against the government (them), or they simply murder them.
It happened to at least 95 million individuals in the 20th century, almost all killed by leftist governments*. The pattern is always the same: Shut down alternate media, take away the guns, and start rounding up undesirables and those whose lives are 'not worth living'. It's happened so many times that the pattern is set. Leftist utopia is dystopia, and not everyone wants to cooperate, so the gutters run with blood.
Consider how closely the fondest desires of the left in recent years coincide with the pattern: For years they were eager to ban and/or register guns, registration being key to later confiscation. Then people realized that this was insanity so the left reluctantly withdrew into the shadows. Now they desire more than anything to punish their political opposition, the Bush administration, and also to silence the opposition of the new media. It's no surprise that accompanying advocacy of the 'Fairness Doctrine' crusade, already, is the concession that blogs and internet content will have to be regulated as well, to insure fairness.
We're in the early stages of their long campaign. If it's not derailed, the end is predictable.

Sarah gives us hope and drives us to work for the movement, even if only through giving our labor through direct contributions. That is another thing the left must crush, our hope.
You can be certain that this is a fact: Destroying the individual named "Sarah Palin" is now the primary and most urgent object of the left. Our lioness may require our assistance, be ready.

TOTA

*From the tome, "The Black Book of Communism", written by French leftists. They estimate 95-200 million people, so I have quoted the low figure. But what's 105 million individuals, give or take? They were standing in the way of the utopia that the brilliant governing leftists sought to create. As Lenin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

Last week, O'Reilley helped try to steal the thunder from McCain by allowing the dishonorable Barack Obama to grab some of the spotlight on the night of McCain's big speech. Less known is the degree to which OR has apparently bought into the power of the old media and the radical leftist new media.

Discussing the attacks on Sarah Palin and her family early last week, OR rightly concluded that they were way over the top, and further proof that the media is in the tank for Obama. Then, incredibly, he repeatedly argued that if Palin where hit with one more scandal she would probably have to bow out of the race. Sir, if the attacks are scurrilous, why should it matter how numerous they are or how fast them come?
Forcing Sarah out is exactly what the left wants. Her authenticity has them wetting their pants. So they are pooping in the kitchen sink and then throwing it at Sarah. And O'Reilley is there cheering them on: Keep it up and I'll have to start talking about how she needs to drop out.
Then the narrative becomes, 'Why isn't stubborn Sarah Palin seeing what everyone in the know sees? She needs to exit the national stage! Too scandalous, tsk tsk.' These people are out to obliterate Sarah; they are attempting to destroy her as a person and as a political force (the first woudl have to precede the second). They want her to be a laughing stock, another Harriet Myers, but smeared with mud and worse, broken and bowing to ongoing disgrace.

Don't give these hateful people any help, Bill.

TOTA

ASSORTED LEFTISTS:

Republicans have a lioness, you have a 'widdle putty tat', and it's driving you crazy.

Those of you with no scruples are feeling the thrill of letting your true nature show through. You others that sound like you've gone off the deep end are simply temporarily deranged by the sudden change of tide.
Both groups know that the election lynch-pin is Palin. If you can pull that pin, or damage it, you might possibly win in November. If Palin shines as she always has, you lot have ZERO hope. Zilch, zippo, nada. ZEEERO. That's one zero, followed by nothing. And things will go much better for republicans in the congress and state houses than anyone now predicts if Palin holds up. Oh - and you don't have to worry about us being this nasty about one of your pro-abortion hysterical feminists when you finally put another woman up for a top job - it's not our nature to be this nasty. That's why you fail in talk radio - your nastiness comes through and most people find it tedious and/or repulsive.

No matter how bad things are, you haven't changed the structure and makeup of the country enough for voters to put this strange and untested man into the seat of world power. McCain probably could have picked anyone and won.
Most people see in Palin a strong, smart, and courageous woman. The left is so blinded by political ambition that you no longer recognize virtue when you see it, or you are incapable of acknowledging it. The more your attacks on her are at variance with what the rest of the population sees in her, the more lunatic you seem to the normal people.

The left in general does not understand America. Only about 20% of the voting population thinks like they do, and another 15-20% are so dependent upon government that they support your people out of self interest. That's your hard core support, 35-40%. The rest of the population is relatively self-reliant, and only susceptible to the kind of blatant demagoguery peddled by Obama when things are very uncertain. ("we are the ones we've been waiting for" - this is pure, un-distilled Marxist activist tripe.)
Notice that Obama hit his highs when the credit crisis was blowing up, oil prices were at their highest, and it wasn't clear that real progress had been made in Iraq. All of these issues are beyond his touch now; his positions are either gone or unsustainable in a general election. It matters not a whit what you leftists think of his ideas, the country at large is not going to swallow, no matter how loudly the left screams "racism". Most of the rest of us think his ideas stink, because they always fail wherever and whenever they're tried. It takes the hubris of thinking you are smarter than everyone else to even peddle his snake oil.

Most of what he had to 'offer' middle American voters is gone. He now sounds to more and more people like a typical leftist peddling favors for votes. And his favors come with strings - his 'tax cuts' are largely credits doled out for government-approved behavior only. Every instinct the man has is to look for systemic unfairness, racism, 'warmongering', or free market excess as the root of every problem, and government and soft power as the answers. Europe shows you what government and soft power get you. America is not buying.


After this election the country will be more divided than ever. Unfortunately for the left, your best spokesman will probably be irretrievably discredited as at least a closet racist and capitaphobe. When the economy improves, it will be another election under the country's belt during which the left said things were worse than at any time since the great depression - and that only radical leftist change could save us. You don't have too many tries left with this line of rhetoric before it gets so shopworn that even you are afraid to use it, for fear of revealing your idiocy. Add the likely turnaround in Europe due to free market reforms, and your utopian dreams will have to wait another generation or two to gain any traction. By then, we'll have amended the constitution to finally keep you permanently in check. If you want to dominate a population and control every aspect of their lives, you'll have to move to Canada.

TOTA

PJ O'Rourke (paraphrasing): "To liberals, freedom essentially means being able to run around with your pants down."

Obama's latest verbal blunder came at the opulent NJ home of aging rocker Jon Bon Jovi. Obama told the $30,000/plate(!) diners that he didn't believe in coming in second, and he "won't be bullied". The blunder is that the latest hammering he's taken has been at the hands of Sarah Palin. It makes one want to ask, "Iz da big bad wady hurting Bawack's wittle feewings?" Pathetic. It would not be beneath these _hyper-sensitive_ cry-babies to try to neuter Palin in the press by painting her as a bully.
But the public gets it - she's tough and direct, not a bully. Almost as many people watched her speak as watched Obama speak. This amounted to an invaluable 40 minute end run around the old media. From him, the viewers heard a lot of whining and complaining, the same old tripe we always hear from these people, and more government is always the solution. From her we heard genuine compassion, and hope. Hope always sells better than bitterness unless the population is in dire straits - and they are not. Remember how the economy, according to Kerry, was the worst it had been since the depression? Similarly in 1988 and 1992. It doesn't matter that it wasn't true, it fed bitterness and angst about inequality. Our message sells when we have an effective spokesman or woman - and we have one now. Obama is a good salesman, but the people won't trust him enough to trust him with the country's future.

TOTA

According to recent viewing data, in spite of Univision and Telemundo boycotting the Palin speech, more Hispanics watched her speech than watched Senator Obama's speech.  By what logic did the executives at these two stations justify showing Obama's speech and boycotting Palin's speech? Arguably, Hispanics and others have had lots and lots and lots of exposure to Mr. Obama. They've had very little exposure to Ms. Palin. I suppose they will argue that Ms. Palin is the VP candidate, whereas Obama is running for the top job. Still, given the interest in the speech, particularly among their viewers, they could easily have made another decision - and their ratings would have been better. But both of these networks have a leftist tilt, so don't hold your breath waiting for any surprise support from them.

TOTA

RE the Politco story painting McCain as desperate:

Let's cut to the nitty-gritty:

DESPERATION:
Politico reporters should know the general trend of recent presidential elections. This reporter apparently does not. At this point in the game, the democrats are usually leading by double digits. Though Politico for some reason highlights the Gallup poll, the RCP average has Obama up by less than four. For a month, the media has been filled with stories wondering why Obama is doing so poorly relative to history and relative to the generic ballot polls that measure relative party strength/interest. And now, just as  the Democrats' convention has clearly not provided the bounce they hoped for, the reporting changes to make McCain appear the desperate one.
A more level headed analysis of the situation is this:
McCain sees what everyone else sees - this Obama fellow is not getting the traction many predicted, the lingering doubts about his arguably terrible judgment still loom large, and he is increasingly shrill and desperate-sounding in many of his communications (witness the lambasting of Stanley Kurtz and the reaction to the Palin pick, which Obama blamed on 'staffers' ). And Israel has yet to act against Iran, so energy may be an even bigger issue on election day if there is conflict in the Middle East. In short, McCain has enough things going his way that he felt confident enough to make a gamble. The reporter has it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

EXPERIENCE:
There is no magical number of years one must have served in office in order to be a good national leader. Nor is the talk about Palin's lack of national experience warranted - many governors have made perfectly adequate presidents. The most important qualifier is judgment, and as she is examined more closely, we'll learn more about that. We already know she has guts.
Despite the crowing from the media, this pick does not negate the experience issue, and for several good reasons.
First, Palin was selected, while Obama promoted himself. She didn't wake up last year and decide to run for President based on an admittedly thin but impressive resume - Obama did, and his resume has virtually nothing to recommend him. This speaks to his judgment and his megalomania (witness also O-Force one, the monogrammed throne on O-Force one, his convention speech set, his personal presidential seal, and his two (count them: two) autobiographies by the age of 45).
Second, experience only matters if it involves significant events or achievements. Despite his incredibly rich life that warranted two autobiographies, Obama's toughest decision was one that involved nothing more than his own conscience and his political persona: whether to oppose the war in Iraq. Mind you - not whether to vote against it, he was still in the Illinois statehouse, but whether to publicly oppose it. In this statement from his own lips we know the truth: He has never had to make a difficult decision, so his experience is pretty meaningless.

This issue will also continue to loom large for another reason: As voters learn more about how Obama has literally been marinated in political radicalism for his entire adult life, they will see that when he says change, he really means it. Does he have any experience implementing the kind of change he seeks to impose on the nation? His previous efforts have been of quite limited success, to be charitable - Chicago's schools still flounder, and the south side of Chicago is still sad and depressing. Why? With a liberal statehouse, mayor and governor, were Illinois coffers simply not deep enough to throw enough cash at the schools and South Chicago to improve things? That is after all the prescription for every ill we face: more bureaucrats spreading around more cash and making more public "investments". There is not a single issue where Obama's prescription is less government involvement, nor has he enumerated any of the programs that "don't work" that he says he will do away with to finance his ideas. In eight years, he apparently accomplished very little in Illinois aside from highlighting his radicalism on abortion.
On the one significant decision he's made that can seriously affect the future of the country and the world, whether to increase our involvement in Iraq or leave, he was wrong. Were he king, he'd long ago have abandoned 25 million Iraqis to their fate (violence and _more_ genocide on top of the hundreds of thousands Hussein murdered). In so doing, he would have permanently ruined America's ability to help any beleaguered people to overthrow tyrants. He and the rest of the left would have sent the clear message the we will run when confronted with force. He'd also have handed radical Islam it's biggest victory in history.
 
As things progress, the truth about these people will come out. Contrary to popular opinion, most voters (about 65%, apparently) are not stupid. As they see and hear more about this perplexing man, it will be Obama's experience and judgment that are the central issues in this campaign.
 
In handling this issue, it's important that conservatives consistently qualify their comments about Obama's lack of experience, by saying that he's way too inexperienced _even if_ his radical politics were right for America. They will never be right for any people anywhere, they always fail and produce misery. We don't want to wake up to a resurgent Obama in three years who is saying that the main objection we had to him last time was his lack of experience. Unless he is permanently discredited by some revelation from his past or some terrible mistake in the campaign, he will be back, probably repeatedly.

TOTA

For the second time in as many weeks, the messiah has urged that the UN security council act against Russia. Not content to see Obama sitting alone on the "58 states" short bus, his handlers have also clamored aboard. Does no one in Obama's orbit know that Russia has a SC veto? Everyone learned that in high school, didn't they?
Obama is intelligent, but not smart (two different things). Nor is he knowledgeable, in fact he is laughably ignorant, moreso than anyone could have expected from any presidential candidate.
Dan Quayle's political career ended when he misspelled potatoe. Obama said there were 58 states, after noting he'd visited 57, and there was one more to go. That means it was not a verbal slip. If a republican said the same thing, he or she would be finished as a public figure. But hey, cut Obama some slack - not only is he liberal, he's black! So he gets twice the passes from the old media.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Obama will lose in a massive way, and racism will be widely blamed. He has already noted the possibility of riots, a standard leftist method of extortion.

TOTA

As Obama's star fades, look for the radical left to pull out all the stops. Wild and baseless accusations of racism will be the norm, and before it's all over, we can expect the obligatory threat of riots. The 'black community' has a lot invested in Obama. Watch for at least one of their 'leaders' to caution us: if racist whites reject Obama, you can expect unrest in the streets.

This will backfire, further undermining Obama's campaign. No one wants to live under the threat of riots caused by election outcomes. If unrest actually does occur, it will damage Obama and democrats. And it will further cement the growing acknowledgment that what we've done to date on race has not worked. Many blacks remain bitter and angry over real and imagined abuses and slights. And many retain a sense of entitlement that saps their productive and creative capacity; this mindset is nursed by democrats.

To make matters worse, this poisonous worldview is the only one promoted with any consistency or visibility in the black community. Racism isn't the problem, I've never met a person who would not hire someone because they are black. Nor is there a community anywhere in America, or a school system anywhere in the country which will deny blacks a business license or a free education. The only concern I've encountered from business owners relates to the firing of blacks - some say that hiring a black person carries with it the risk that if they are dismissed, they will sue and you'll find yourself defending your business in front of bureaucrats who can destroy it. If there is any widespread reluctance to hire blacks, that is likely a greater cause than racism. And of course leftists want more such laws; if they had their way, you'd have to go to a tribunal in order to fire a minority from your business.

The vast, vast majority of whites are cheered by black success and have no hate in their hearts for blacks. Yet we are almost all depicted as racist haters, who view blacks as the enemy, and want them to fail, and miserably. In fact, the general lot of blacks was improving consistently until liberals got their hooks into them and started using the black community as a giant social experiment. The white people they consider their friends are really their worst enemies.
If the goal of a national discussion on race is to eliminate racism, it has largely already happened. If in order to move on, blacks must be convinced of the truth of this, the debate has no end. There will always be those who will agitate.

Obama promises no relief, only further division and discord. He apparently endorsed reparations the other day, and a more liberal congress could conceivably approve it. This is the age of madness.

TOTA

I used to coach high school debate for a very competitive school in Texas. We had kids in the dramatic speech events that spoke as well as Obama, and we had freshman debaters who could beat him like a drum, even taking the weak side of any argument. His speaking skill is nothing compared to the likes of Alan Keyes, who is a great orator, unlike the merely 'good' - but liberal and black - Obama. Were he white, at best he'd be hoping to be Hillary's VP choice - that's a truth as clear and hard as diamond.

If you don't believe this next statement, please consider reading Obama's autobiography:   For Barrack Obama, almost everything is about race.  Generally, race is wholly irrelevant.  If whites see "black guy" when they look at a black man, rather than "guy", it's largely because the mouthpieces for the 'black community' won't shut up about race. If we handed out massive reparations, they'd complain that it wasn't enough, then complain that some people were swindled out of their booty by greedy white capitalists.  But it the case of the presidential race, it turns out that it _is_ ultimately all about race.

If Obama wins, it will clearly be because he is black - millions will vote for him for that reason alone, and were he any other color, he would not be running this year - his lack of experience betrays a dangerously massive ego. Before going to the IL state house, where his seminal accomplishment appears to have been voting to allow doctors to kill babies that survive abortions, he was a 'community organizer'. This means he was the guy who really got south Chicago to band together to clean up their communitie, demand that schools institute discipline and fire bad teachers, and tear up the gangs that make the residents fearful. Say what? None of that happened, and the residents of south Chicago are as bad off or worse than they were when they first heard the name, Barack Obama? My mistake. I see upon some further researching that his years of 'community organizing' amounted to precisely diddly squat. He touts no accomplishments from this part of his life. He does confess to lots of pot smoking prior to these years. Perhaps his new chores as community organizer left time for - or even included - similar 'recreational activities'. How else do we explain that this brilliant and oh-so capable man, dropped into the midst of people he cares about so deeply, did so little for so long? Anyway, were he white, he'd rightly be laughed off the stage. So if he wins, it will be due to his skin color. We all know it; it's manifestly obvious to a low-grade moron.

If Obama loses, it will also all be about race. A great number of his supporters will say - perhaps vehemently or even violently -
that he lost because of white racism. In fact, if any of a number of talented conservative blacks were to run for president, the vast bulk of conservatives.would be unflinching in our support for them. But that doesn't fit the narrative that every failure of blacks is due to either overt white racism, or the inherent unfairness of a system set up to benefit whites at the expense of blacks. We can expect: 'The GOP played the race card over and over', 'whites just aren't ready to accept the notion of racial equality', 'The republicans cheated', 'the election appeared rigged', and worse. It will be a deluge because this election won't be close. Obama owns at least half a dozen serious flaws that make him unelectable. Already, the more the country sees and hears of him the less they seem to like him. He's had constant orgasmic coverage in the media and he's slipping in the polls. His idiot energy plan alone will sink him. And as he slips further, expect more and more radical statements and policy ideas as desperation sinks in. By election time, only blacks, hardcore leftists and government clients will be voting for him, to the rest of the country he will be seen alternately as a clown, a demon bent on ruining the country, or a tragic, broken figure.

But although we will have something to celebrate in 96 days - keeping the country out of the hands of a political lunatic - it will be a mixed blessing. Be ready for an earful about how racist you are.

TOTA

Matt Drudge missed the big news here: http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html

The story duly noted the ecstatic minority press reception of Obama. Though the reporters had been warned not to do so (don't want to appear biased, after all), "many journalists" leaped to their feet when he appeared on stage.

But the headline of the story and the Drudge post missed the main revelation. In Obama's own words:
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

What do 'deeds' look like to Obama? Affirmative action isn't enough. Nor are the trillions spent on economic assistance, nor the tolerance of black on white crime (100 white women are raped by a black man for every 1 black woman raped by a white man).  No, it's time we really ponied up. We need a massive income transfer from whites to blacks. Then, the crisis will evolve into, "The white man has stolen the blacks' reparations monies with scurrilous capitalist schemes." There is no end to this madness once it begins.

Here's the true prescription for black success in America:
 - Stop the anonymous sex and get married
 - Stay in school at least until you can read and write effectively
 - Don't tolerate gangster crime in your communities
 - Stop lauding the emotionally and mentally retarded "rap" industry
 - Stop complaining. Seriously. Thousands of Vietnamese arrived here in boats in the 1970s. They left mass genocide allowed by the US government, after we told those people we would help them. Where is the organized victim group for Vietnamese Americans? They're busy working, and have realized that they _are not entitled to anything_. Blacks' sense of entitlement is killing them as a race.

And for God's sake, we're all well aware of the country's shortcomings, enough already. I'm waiting for the speech where Obama scolds the Arab world for their treatment of Africans. As many blacks went to Arabia over the centuries as came to the new world. There are not a lot of blacks in Arabia today because most of the men were castrated; the Arabs didn't want them breeding. How does Obama feel about that? We'll never know, because the Arabs aren't going to pay blacks a dime for their woes.

TOTA

Some scientists are pretty sure that the universe is teeming with intelligent life. Others are not so sure. One of the reasons they are doubtful relates directly to energy. Here's how the argument goes:
 
 - All species colonize and spread to the extent of their ability, filling every ecological niche they can. For an extremely advanced intelligent species, we can also expect that they will have an insatiable appetite for mass and energy, if only to build and run faster and better computers.

 - The evidence of such colonization and expansion will be obvious from very far away because these advanced societies will be involved with stellar engineering. This would include relatively simple projects such as "Dyson Spheres", where a massive number of solar energy satellites are built close around a star in order to tap all of its power. More advanced projects would conceivably tap the gravitational energy of star clusters or galaxies. Because of their effects upon stellar emissions and gravity, these projects would produce anomalies which would be evident from very far away. In fact, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is presently looking for such anomolies.

 - The fact that we see no evidence of such projects supports the idea that intelligent life is probably fairly scarce.

It's an interesting theory, and my hunch is that it's true - we don't see evidence of advanced life because it's not there.
Pessimists would say that we don't see this evidence because intelligent life is short lived, or destroys itself. But intelligent beings with hands or the equivalent have an enormous advantage over all other life forms - they are not hostage to the natural environment. As long as we have access to ice and energy, we can survive in almost any environment, and we're likely to spread into space just as we've spread across the globe. Many humans would survive even the worst conceivable disasters: all out nuclear (and chemical and biological) world war, or an astronomical event such as a gamma ray burster or a nearby super nova. And once we colonize other star systems, it's likely that only a superior intelligence - either The Creator or a more advanced species - could actually exterminate mankind.

So what does all of this have to do with our current situation?
This is the first time since the 1970s that energy has become a significant issue. And this time around, people are considering it in totality. One of the most basic facts that should underlie the entire debate is that our appetite for energy as a species will grow as we advance technologically. And it's likely that the growth will far outstrip our current expectations.
If you'd made the argument about the fundamental importance of energy for advanced technological civilizations several years ago, few people would have objected, they'd have thought it obvious. Now, some resist because the obviousness of the point has been driven home with a ball-peen hammer, and the implications (more drilling, nuclear, coal) upset the world-view of some people. But we're going to need energy if we plan to continue to advance, and that means using what we have. We are not running out of any of the non-renewable sources of energy at present. We simply aren't exploiting them.

In a million years, are we going to be holding up the construction of new Dyson spheres because of lawsuits by radical environmentalists, or stonewalling by radical legislators? One has to think not. If these folks survive as a potent political force, we probably won't be building much of anything in the future, so it would be a moot question.

TOTA

Rumors are flying around the high rent district; two of the three news anchors O'Bama! is taking along on his middle east tour were seen buying knee-pads at local sporting goods stores. Remarkably, both chatted up the clerks, admitting that they were buying the knee pads for their big trip.
One has to wonder what purpose these knee pads will serve. One cad was overheard suggesting that they will need the pads as they bow and scrape before O'Bama!. I think they'll use the knee-pads to continue doing what they've been doing for the last year. As opportunity presents itself, O'Bama! will smile down at them as they slip on the pads. Perhaps He will sit in an overstuffed chair, limbs akimbo. As the news anchors take their turns on their knees before him, He will certainly express His gratification. He seems to make something of a mess of things. He'll be delighted to have the extra help of the anchors as they clean up the plane just as they've tried to clean up His campaign.
What did you think I was talking about? If you've watched the press literally gobbling Him up over the last year, I guess I can't blame you if you thought I was implying that they would be washing His feet, waiting for a blessing.

This trip is unprecedented in the history of the country. Given that O'Bama! has already handed down His Iraq policy before the trip even starts, it is pure propaganda. What justifies the marketing entourage? Leftist hunger to finally (finally!) end the despotism of conservatives. For those who currently hold the keys to the asylum, that goal justifies any action, no matter how blatantly biased or unscrupulous.

TOTA

I believe everyone has long been mis-reading the public's sentiment. People don't want change. They want normalcy. They want stability. They are sick and tired of feeling like they don't have very much control over the future. Recent developments in the commodities and credit markets are more of the same, generating more consumer anxiety and uncertainty. The average American no longer wakes up most days with the conviction that life will be largely the same next month as it was last month; some new grim revelation seems always to be lurking.

Consider the challenges that have settled in since 2000: 9/11, war, the continuing threat of terrorism, North Korean and Iranian nukes, payday loan centers on every other corner, outsourcing, rising health care costs, de-industrialization, illegal immigration, Islamic radicalism, exotic diseases, gay marriage, the world's animus toward America, energy prices, currency devaluation, the ascendancy of amoral China, the home loan crisis, disintegrating credit markets, etc. On top of these new concerns there still persists record and growing consumer debt, massive national debt, a zero savings rate, and looming national financial insolvency due to entitlement commitments. These concerns, along with a slew of others, have people feeling insecure and uncertain about the future. The media stokes this uncertainly relentlessly because they are largely leftists, and they want radical change.

Even the well-off ought to be concerned. Some of these problems are existential problems; we will have to deal with them to survive as a relatively free people. And the ongoing general uncertainty can throw open the doors to a demagogue like O'Bama!, who would seek to radically change virtually every aspect of society, using the public's anxiety as an excuse for action on all fronts, with government at the center of everything.  No evidence exists that growing the government is the solution to any of these problems, but that doesn't matter to O'Bama!; growing the government is his philosophy, every problem simply serves as an excuse. It's irrelevant to him that virtually every other country in the first world is looking to go in the other direction - looking to shrink government and promote private sector growth.

McCain must articulate the real nature of America's anxiety, and argue that this is not the time to turn the country upside down. It's time for the tried and true.
If anything, some of the problems listed above are so serious and unavoidable that they should serve to focus the government's attention where it will do the most good - foreign relations, war, disease prevention, emergency response, terrorism, certain macroeconomic issues, and border security. The free market can provide much better solutions to many ongoing problems, such as health care, retirement security, energy, and education. Washington can't do everything, obviously, and giving it more power and money has so far failed to change that fact. This seemingly iron fact of the universe will be on brutally clear display going forward. The challenges faced by the country dwarf those it faced just a decade ago.

If the GOP can't alter this 'change' debate, they may lose the election with or without the energy issue. By November, things may look so bleak on so many fronts that people will blindly grasp at the loudest proclamation of 'real change' - even the poison O'Bama! is peddling.

TOTA

At the moment, the GOP has a virtual monopoly on the energy issue. That won't last long; reports of Democrat lawmakers returning from weekends with constituents don't bode well for the GOP. Some Democrats are getting the message. The GOP must act now if they are going to see this issue save their hides in November. Talk of likely democrat pick-ups in both houses is grossly premature, the uber-issue has yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of voters, much less resolved. This is the GOP's big chance, if they have their wits about them they will seize it.

Specifically, an election contract should be drawn up, in short order. Everyone knows what we need to do, so let's codify it, and put it in front of the voters in a way that can't be ignored. Spend most of the GOP money in the bank advertising it, promote it on TV, radio, and the web. Have legislators and candidates, including McCain, sign it, so that voters know that the legislators who sign this contract are committed to actually doing something about energy prices, while those who have not are committed to dreaming. Properly framed and promoted, this could be the major question in the voting booth this fall: "Which one of these candidates supports the Free America Energy Plan?"

It seems only fair to allow Democrat politicians on board, but let's get on with it already, GOP, the longer you wait, the more of them will be standing in line to clamor about how they've been for drilling all along. Their idiots at the top are all off in lala land, so let's get on with this now while a crystal clear distinction can still be made. If not, we can count on this still being a significant issue in November outside of the looniest districts, but then, the general Democrat line will be, "I had some environmental concerns, but after visiting blah blah blah, I'm convinced that we can do this in an environmentally friendly way. Of course the only way to make sure the drilling we all want happens in a 'smart' and 'responsible' way is to elect more Democrats."

GOP, if you can't recognize a gift horse when it is served up on a silver platter, you are a precursor to something; your will is no longer sufficient to carry you for long in this brave new world. If roles were reversed, and the Democrats could make hay by advocating something the vast majority of Americans actually wants, we'd be wallowing in hay. GOP: Whatever else you are doing can WAIT. This is the most important thing on the itinerarty; it is the itinerary for all intents and purposes.

Is it possible that this simple idea has not occurred to the powers that be in the GOP? Not likely. So what explains the lack of action on it? Don't bother explaining, GOP, just act. Don't tell us about legislation being drawn up in the house and senate, do this first, then propose the legislation. Can't get everyone together in a big room for long enough to hammer this out? Then put your top guys on it and have them ride herd on the rest of the GOP, and make sure every GOP challenger signs on. It's go time; the light is green.

TOTA