Thoughts on the 2008 Election

Jessica Wakeman is a friend of mine. She is an excellent writer and intellectual, however, we rarely see eye-to-eye on things. I value her friendship and our conversations, however, because she is well-informed and, more importantly, she is willing to talk and learn things from our conversations (and I learn a lot from her). She recently posted a blog regarding the 2008 election and its overall affect on the state of women in our society. You can read it here. Jessica's article is essnetially a commentary on an article in the New Yorker by Amanda Fortini. Fortini's thesis is essentially that Palin, and Palin alone, has set women back somehow. I submit to you a quote, that I feel sums up her point:

"Palin reinforced some of the most damaging and sexist
ideas of all: that women are undisciplined in their thinking; that we are
distracted by domestic concerns or frivolous pursuits like shopping; that we are
not smart enough, or not serious enough, for the important jobs."

Thus, my post will be a commentary on Jessica's article, which essentially makes it a commentary on Fortini by deriviative.

____________________________________________________________________

To understand the "perception" of Sarah Palin, we must first analyze the media's role in creating that perception. There is emerging emperical data to support my claim that the perception of Palin was media created.

A new documentary, based on polling data, is in the works that details how the media was in the tank for Obama. The polling data, however, is extremely interesting.

- Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter;
- 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party; and
-81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned.
- When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin. (My Note: this has relevance in weighing how many Obama supporters correctly answered the questions, and it is still shocking that 87% actually attributed the quote to Palin herself, not Tina Fey).

Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden:

- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot; and
- 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry.
- Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
- Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech; and
- Nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.

In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election:

- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

SOURCE ____________________________________________________

That is shocking data. Obviously, the media was successful in covering up any flaws of Obama and Biden, while accentuating those of McCain and Palin (somehow, 87% of Obama supporters were actually convinced Palin said something that an actress on SNL made up in a skit lampooning the candidate!). Many people I have talked to have told me they initially wanted McCain to be president, but felt forced to vote for Obama after Palin was nominated, but were hard pressed to mention to me anything specific. A typical response was, "Dude, she has no foreign policy experience except that she can see Russia from her house," ignoring (or not knowing, and in the most audacious cases, not believing the fact that of all the candidates she was the only one to ever negotiate with a foreign leader (Canada, to get the pipeline built).

As for hard evidence, Fortini goes to the interviews Palin conducted with Couric and Gibson. If you think these were all "fair," then you are not being fair. The scrutiny Palin came under was more intense than that applied to the Democrat nominee for the Oval Office. I never heard Obama get asked such questions as:

- "What daily periodicals do you read?"
- "Can you name a Supreme Court decision that you do not agree with?"
- "What is the Bush Doctrine?" (It is useful to note that there are 4-6 separate and distinctive policy doctrines that share this monicker).

Aside from those specific comparisons, how about the laundry list of issues Obama was never pressed on:

- Bill Ayers
- Rev. Wright
- His comments regarding energy pricing, and bankrupting the coal industry
- His feelings on Sen. Biden's comment that their administration will be "tested" regarding National Security, and more to the point- why Sen. Biden pleaded with supporters to stick with them because it will appear at first that they [Team Obama] are not going to make the right decision.
- His "spread the wealth" gaffe.
- His ties to Franklin Raines and the rest of the people that presided over the Frannie/Freddie collapse (the first domino of our current economic crisis, which has its roots in what I think we can all call a failed Clinton policy).

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. There was enough fodder in this campaign to make any candidate from either side look like an incompetent dunce (57 states? Really?). The only parts that were accentuated were those that fell on the McCain/Palin side of the camp. I disagree with Jessica that deciding whether or not the public perception of Palin is her fault or the media's- and that it something to be debated. Clearly, the media had an agenda, a preference, and they were successful. Palin did not reinforce the negative stereotypes Fortini laments- the media cast her as that stereotype to demonize and delegitimize her!!!

If you insist on maintaining that this election actually represents a "step back" for women, you can't make that case by piling all of the blame upon Gov. Palin. Fortini only gives token mention to Hillary Clinton's role, and most of it is done with an overlyin conciliatory tone. Clinton was forced into hiding her feminine side because of "likability issues," and because she made a decision to not make the race about gender. Apparently it's OK to perpetuate the career woman as a man-hating, pant-suit cladden, she-devil bitch stereotype because, "...At least being called a bitch implies power." In eight words, Fortini completely forgives Clinton of any wrong-doing.

Fortini's article perfectly manifests what I find so troubling about feminists (and all other leftist social movements that have lived on since the 1960s). In the feminist mind-set, the world is absolute. The only two choices that exist for them are literally "Ditz or Bitch." I have this same general critique for all of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s that have somehow managed to stick around and fool most people that they are still relevant.

No matter which movement you identify with, you are left with only two choices: "Ditz or Bitch," "Modern, career oriented, independent woman or subservient, male-dominated housewife," "Brother/Sister or Uncle Tom,"... for these groups life is a coin-toss in which you must be absolutely on one side or the other, with no ability to venture into a middle ground. What results is an ideological prison whose walls are held up by fear-mongering, divisiveness and pitting people against each other (Men v. Women, Blacks/Hispanics v. Whites, Gays v. Straights, etc).

For these movements to hold on to the power that they have, people like Sarah Palin (or Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Condi Rice) must be destroyed.

I don't agree with Fortini's analysis or her thesis. This election was a triumph for not only blacks and women, but for the nation writ large. Neither Hillary nor Palin deserve to be stereotyped as a "Bitch" or "Ditz" respectively. They are both career women who beautifully handle (have handled in Clinton's case, currently handling in Palin's case) the pressures of not only being successful at what they do (and let's be frank, they are both incredibly successful at what they do) as well as family life (they both have faced their fair share of extreme challenges), all while handling the immense pressure that is put on them by the national media. They each have their own styles and beliefs, and they should each be commended for what they are: rising stars in their respective parties.

The only thing that has regressed during this election is how the media covers candidates. The open, rabid and unapologetic bias that is crammed down our throats from the major media outlets is incredibly disturbing. There is no such thing anymore as a journalist that objectively reports the facts and lets the viewer decide. When Fox News has the largest and most non-partisan audience in the country, it should be a signal to all that something is very, very wrong with the mainstream media.

The Democrats are built on a coalition consisting of social movements that have long outlived their general usefullness. Gone are the days of open, systemic (i.e.- by law, hiring policies, etc) persecution of women, non-whites and gays. To maintain power, they must convince their respective constituents that oppression lurks around the corner, and that not voting for whoever they endorse will usher in a new era of Jim-Crow, patriarchy, or the closing down of gay bars. Thus, you have the intellecutal police, such as Fortini, who tow the party line and paint what should be a victory (Palin's successes) as a defeat in disguise and a sign that more progress is needed.

Sometimes, a movement needs to know when to get out of its own way. That time is rapidly approaching feminists, as well as supporters of affirmative action and those that insist that this country is full of closet racists.

We stand on the precipice...

In less than 48 hours, the citizens of this nation will be asked to make the most important decision that has faced them since the end of the cold war in terms of choosing the next president. The candidates are about as different as night and day, and it is abundantly clear to me what the right choice is.  

We must elect John McCain as the next president of our glorious republic.

Barack Obama is the wrong choice for this country, and I will elaborate on the reasons for this now in hopes that I can change enough precious minds to make a difference.  At the least, I will feel better after I finish.

For starters, Obama has been the most dishonest candidate to run for any office that I have ever seen with my own eyes, or studied about.  The list of his lies are myriad.  Add to that his ridiculous and disastrous tax policy, his unrealistic platform (his "Plan for Change" on his website), his socialist views, past and associations, and, let's not forget, his inexperience and you have every reason to say that this is a man who should have never been a serious candidate for president.  Let's explore:

1)  He did not know about Rev. Wright's radical views during the 20 years he spent as a member of Wright's church.  

        -  To actually believe this story (and most of Obama's other explanations for things) you must cast aside the common sense and reasoning that are part of every person.  Citizens, Obama has said- in his own books and in public speeches- that Rev. Wright is his MENTOR, the person that keeps him HONEST to his (i.e.- Obama's) TRUE BELIEFS.  The media- which has disgraced itself in its blatant coronation of Obama since his DNC convention speech of 2004- of course ignored this story, but once it finally hit the public en masse, Obama was simply allowed to say, "Hey, I had no idea he believed that stuff," and get away with it!  Conversely, if McCain or Palin had so much as walked past a church in their lifetime that preached things half as hateful as Obama's "church" did, do you really think it would be a topic that is "off issue" during this election?  In fact, there was that ridiculous video of Palin at some church in the Alaskan boonies getting blessed by some witch doctor (or some other nonsense) and that was fodder for the media for a while.  Sadly, this association is only the TIP of the iceberg in revealing Obama's true nature.

2)  Obama did not know about William Ayers or his past.

       -  Really?  Obama launched his state senate campaign in the guys living room- you don't do that kind of thing at the house of some acquaintence.  And then, when confronted, the back peddling began:  Obama then stated that he knew of Ayers (so, he lied at first) but he thought he was "reformed."  Shockingly, this caused people to be satisfied that Obama was clearly innocent and the association means nothing.  Are we really that dumb?  Again, if McCain or Palin had worked with a reformed KKK/Skinhead/"insert white-wing nut-job group of choice here", do you really think the "I thought he/she/they were reformed" line would give them a pass with the media?  If you answer yes to that hypothetical, you should be barred from voting in this election because you are either a) stupid, b) will say anything to exonerate Obama, or c) both.

3)  McCain is Bush III

     -  The absurdity of this comparison should be blatantly aware to anyone with half a brain that has heard of John McCain.  McCain is the man John Kerry BEGGED to have as a running mate (the dream bi-partisan ticket that probably would have won him the election in 2004- he would have had this guy's vote).  McCain almost left the GOP over his anger at Bush and his tactics in the 2000 primary.  McCain has stood diametrically opposed to Bush on several issues- climate change and immigration for starters.  This fallacy is ridiculous, and the fact that it has gone unchallenged by any major media outlet is disgusting.

4)  Tax cuts for the "middle class."  

     -  $250,000, $200,000, $150,000 and, most recently, $120,000 have been the numbers tossed out for what democrats think is "middle class."  When I watched a woman try to explain how Obama and his surrogates were not being inconsistent in tossing out all of these numbers, she uttered something that I think is the most revealing aspect of the liberal mind.  She said, "Well, let's be honest here, "middle class" is really what most Americans make, and the majority of Americans make around $42,000 a year."  If that doesn't make your ears perk up, don't vote.  Obama has voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes on people and families making $42,000 and over.  There is nothing on his record to suggest he will do anything different, and, let's not forget that he only proposes the budget- CONGRESS passes it.  

Do you think President Obama will veto a budget- potentially shutting down the federal government for weeks- if a Pelosi/Reid Congress decides we need more money and they raise taxes on people making $42,000 and over?  I believe this woman commentator speaks for the lunatic left.  In their heart of hearts they think her definition of middle class is the correct one.  Congress will write the budget, not Obama, and it will be up to him to veto it- which he won't.  Repeal of Bush tax cuts- an Obama position means HIGHER TAXES FOR EVERYONE from the get go.  

Stay tuned for part II...

Fox News has the most balanced audience of any major news outlet

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/08/new_poll_shows_a_deep_growing_1.html

PEW Center did a poll breaking down the partisanship of the major news outlet's viewers and the results are very interesting:

%REP %DEM %IND

FOX News 33 39 22
CNN 18 51 23
MSNBC 18 45 26
NetworkEvening News 22 45 26
PBS 21 46 23

The traditional networks had a viewership of democrats that outnumbered republicans by a 2:1 ratio. So, the alleged "conservative mouthpiece" of the media has the most balanced audienced out of all the major new outlets.

No wonder they lead in ratings and number of total viewers.

I guess this takes away liberal arguments of the conservative bias, considering that the majority of the people watching Fox News are either democrats or independents...

On Israel

A week or so ago, Israel "leaked" a series of drills their air force was conducting. It is believed that these drills are preparations for a possible air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. John Bolton (US Ambassador to the UN) believes the Israel might bomb Iran if Obama is elected. If such a strike occurs, he thinks the timing will be inbetween the US election and the innauguration of the next president. In an interview with Chris Matthews, Bill Kristol, the editor of Weekly Standard stated his belief that Bush will bomb Iran if he believes (or if it actually happens) Obama is elected. [Personal Note: I highly doubt Bill Kristol has any real credentials to be discussing foreign policy issues, but I'll ignore that glaring complaint for now.]

Citizens, this is the greatest foreign policy question of this campaign. No matter who wins the election, an Israeli strike (or a US strike) against Iran will only serve one purpose: igniting an all-out war in the Middle East. Such a war will probably involve nuclear weapons. Either Iran (if they have them) will use them against Israel, Israel, if cornered by a significant bloc of Muslim countries, might decide to nuke a high profile Muslim target (Mecca anyone?) in an act of desperation, or a group of terrorists might use one on an American or Israeli target in the Middle East (or, God forbid, somewhere outside the Middle East) as an attempt to turn the West (if any countries other than the US and the UK form an alliance with Israel) and its soft body politic against any aggression.

Even if the war does not go nuclear, the fallout will be catastrophic. You think gas is expensive now? Just wait until OPEC enacts another embargo. Just wait until the strategic reserves are diverted solely for military use overseas. You think 4,000+ deaths is too high a price over a period of five years? What will you think when that number becomes a daily total?

Anyone who reads this blog will immediately tell where my political allegiance for this election lies. This post, however, transcends partisan bickering. The Israel/Iran situation must be discussed at length and the US government (under any president) must attempt to broker some sort of deal between these two countries. Sadly, I fear this may not be possible. Bush seems to have no interest in this endeavour and is acting like a true lame duck. If Israel (or Bush's) plan is to attack Iran after the Novemember election, we could be looking at an Armageddon type scenario in the worst case. The best we can hope for is a hard fought conventional war that would make the Iraq war look like a little league game. In either case, the cost to all- in blood and treasure- will be astronomical and the conflict will have wide-ranging effects on the entire globe.

Start talking about this issue. Read about it. Educate yourselves about it. Write your representatives. The stakes are way too high not to...

David Dinkins & Obama

Years ago, back in college, i wrote a huge seminar paper on David Dinkins' political career.
In sum:
--Dinkins was a career machine politician, rising not because of any dynamic abilities of his own, but rather through party loyalty, connections and being in the right place at the right time...
- When Dinkins ran against Giuliani for mayor of NYC in 1989, he was able to deflect most of the serious criticisms about his proposed policies, his associations, his plans to reduce crime/treament of police, and his economic plans with charges of racism, or allegations that critics were "subtly injecting race" into the campaign...
- Dinkins ran in 1989 pledging that he would deliver "racial healing" to NYC throughout what he called the "gorgeous mosaic" of New York's diverse communities. Many New Yorkers felt that his low-key personality, which contrasted so sharply with that of his predecessor, along with the symbolic aspect of his being the city's first black mayor, might ease racial tensions.

Instead, Dinkins' term was marked by polarizing events including the 1991 Crown Heights Riot and the boycott of a Korean-owned grocery in Flatbush. He was accused of restraining the police during the Crown Heights Riot...
- Dinkins entered office with a $1.8 billion budget deficit and attempted to balance the budget by raising taxes. The effects were dire: 300,000 private sector jobs left the city and investment in NYC hit an all time low...
- In 1991, New York was unable to pay city employees. At this point, the Dinkins administration proposed unprecedented cuts in public services, $1 billion in tax increases and the elimination of 27,000 jobs. He cut education by $579 million, marked 10 homeless shelters for closing which was opposed by the city council. Just a year later however, the city had a $200 million dollar surplus...
- Dinkins beat Giuliani in 1989 by 47,080 votes. It was later determined that the major swing bloc that gave Dinkins the election were middle, middle upper and upper class whites who on exit polls said they voted for Dinkins primarily because of a) the historic impact of his campaign, b) he would heal the city's racial wounds (reaction to bernie getz), or c) both...
- When Giuliani ran against Dinkins in 1993, he beat him by a margin of 53,367 votes. The same key swing bloc that gave Dinkins the victory in 1989 was what gave Rudy the election in 1993.
____________________________________________________

Citizens, i fear that what happened in NYC between 1989 and 1993 is what is going to happen now on a much grander scale.

- Obama is an inexperienced machine politician from the Chicago political establishment...
- His economic approach to our budget deficit is to raise taxes. We are facing a recession at the worst, and at best an economic downturn, just as NYC was when Dinkins took over. Dinkins economic plans failed miserably and the economy only began to recover as government spending was slashed tremendously...
- Obama has used racism to deflect questions and criticisms raised about his church, his middle name, his potential islamic background, and his other questionable associations...
- Simultaneously, Obama and his supporters are using the historic opportunity of his candidacy to attract voters. I called this the "exploitation of white guilt" in my paper and showed how the strategy was targeted at middle, upper middle and upper class white people (the more "educated" the better). Obama is the darling of college kids and academia, the parallel to Dinkins strategy here is alarming.
- Obama, like Dinkins, presents himself as a racial healer but offers no justification of his claim. Dinkins was a member of Tammany Hall, a political machine that started in the late 19th, early 20th century but by WW2 was dominated by blacks and dedicated solely to electing blacks and representing their interests. Obama's associations and the rhetoric of the church he spent 2 decades in is a far more alarming relationship and should cast serious doubts on Obama's abilities as a racial healer...
- Furthermore, language from Obama's own books should add further doubt as to his ability to heal racial divides:

This is from "Audacity of Hope":

"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From "Dreams";

"The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
"There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white"

These quotes are not indicative of one who sees himself as a bi-racial man who can bring us together. Rather, at best it shows his rabid identification with blacks and at worst it shows his rabid animosity towards whites...
__________________________________________________________

NYC made a hugh mistake when it elected Dinkins in 1989. They paid for it w/ two massive race riots, an economy that got worse ever year, mass lay offs in city jobs, huge losses of jobs in the private sector, and more crime (or at the least no real significant change in crime rates).

The stakes in NYC were high, but no where near what they are in a national presidential election.

The President will be in charge of the Iraq War, which is incredibly important to security and stability in the middle east.

The President will have to deal with Iran, a nation that could potentially provide terrorist organizations with an atomic bomb.

The next President will have to lead the most powerful global force on earth and realize the role the US plays in the global economy and in global security.

The next president will have to establish an economic plan to guide us through this economic "down period" as well as deal with soaring oil prices (prices were soaring when Dinkins took over as well because of the Gulf War).

We can not afford to make a mistake in this election because the consequences might be too devastating. NYC was able to bounce back, elect the better candidate and during his tenure went through the greatest renaissance in urban history.

we can not make the same mistake as NYC did in 1989. VOTE McCAIN!!!

Obama Cometh

So it's been settled. B. Hussein Obama, a freshman senator with little experience and barely reaching the minimum requirements to qualify as a potential president, is the democratic nominee. While this is a disappointment for me, it does not come as a surprise. He was practically ordained at the 2004 DNC as the best thing since sliced bread and they have been on a crusade for the past four years pushing for his nomination. I bet if I go through my old issues of TIME magazine, i could find at least 5 covers with him on it and somehow tying him into a possible candidacy- all prior to him announcing his bid.

At first, I welcomed Obama as the candidate because I figured he would stand no chance. Now, I am not so certain. His team brilliantly orchestrated a way to effectively take Jeremiah Wright out of the equation. I have no doubts that Wright's speaking tour was a planned out event by the PR firm Mr. Axelrod hired for Trinity Church (pro-bono work) after the scandal initially broke. They gave Wright a national audience and he said the same garbage he was saying from the pulpit, but this time Obama was incensed and distanced himself from the pastor. It was essentially a do-over; a second chance to do what Obama did not do right the first time... brilliant.

Obama's candidacy is made of sheer ambition, and that scares me. He is stopping at nothing to become president.

He has the most liberal voting record of any politician in Washington (a trend that has carried over from his days as a state politician), he has close associations with those that hate America, he has close associations with racially divisive radicals, and he has openly shown his disdain and contempt for blue-collar America (with their guns and religion). Yet, he has effectively hidden all of this from people, or has entranced people to ignore it.

I fear that this will turn into a David Dinkins scenario. Back in my academic days, I wrote a political biography on David Dinkins for an African American history seminar that I took. One of the conclusions that I reached was that Dinkins was elected mayor of NYC in 1989 because of one factor: his race. A crucial "swing" bloc of about 89,000 voters handed him the office. In 1993, Rudy Giuliani (who had lost to Dinkins in 1989) beat Dinkins by about the same margin that Dinkins beat him in the prior race. The same crucial "swing" bloc gave Giuliani the office in 1993.

Who made up this crucial bloc? Middle to upper class white democrats. Exit polls showed many in this demographic voted for Dinkins in 1989 for "the history" or "it was time for change" or "it was about time the greatest city in the world elected a black man."

During the campaign, Dinkins was able to deflect most serious criticism levied against him with charges of racism, white privilege, etc etc.

The Dinkins Administration was a disaster. He left NYC no better than when he took over, in fact, it is a safe argument that the city was worse off when Giuliani took over. Furthermore, Dinkins proved to be no master at race-reconcilliation. During his tenure, there were several "racial events" that happened, including the infamous and devastating riots in Brooklyn.

I fear that Obama will experience a similar situation. A crucial swing bloc of white, middle to upper class voters will vote for him out of a) "white guilt" b) blind allegiance to the democrat party c) the historical opportunity his presidency presents, or d) all of the above. Furthermore, and there is allready evidence of this, Obama will use the race-card to deflect criticism. He has allready started doing it.

Mentioning his last name is race baiting.

Mentioning that a white senator similarly situated to Obama would not have been able to run for president with the success Obama had is racist.

Mentioning Jeremiah Wright or playing his comments is racist.

I see the pattern allready developing. Dinkins was a disaster for NYC. He was a machine politician with no real executive experience and it showed when he took office. Dinkins, however, did not have access to nuclear weapons, or command of the most advanced military on the planet. While his administration was a disaster, voters were able to repair it 4 years later and the city went on to have one of the greatest revivals in urban history.

A disastrous Obama presidency might not present us with a similar opportunity, the stakes are just too high. A slip up with Iran could lead to a nuclear attack on our soil. His dangerous and class warfare inspired taxation system will stymie American businesses and scare away jobs and investors from our economy. In four years, Obama could send us into a nuclear winter or a second great depression. That is what is at stake, and that is why he can not be allowed to become president of this republic.

Oil

Right before I started writing this post, crude oil was trading at $125.84 per barrel. The average price of a gallon of gas nationwide is $3.72. To put that into perspective, in November of 2005, the national average for a gallon of gas was about $2.35 per gallon (reference). To add further perspective, in 1995, a mere 13 years ago, crude oil cost $19 per barrel.

Citizens, something must be done soon. My 3rd entry was actually on the topic of the energy crisis. That was back at the end of February, when gas cost $3.15 a gallon (the good old days?). This is the most pressing issue facing the Republic today, and to my dismay our politicians are doing nothing to address it.

President Bush has gone to Saudi Arabia to convince the kingdom to increase its oil production to help combat the rising cost of oil. They say that they will increase production "When the market justifies it." Great plan, convince a nation that has never had out best interests in mind to spend money doing something that the United States has the capability to do, but lacks the will. Brilliant.

Hillary and McCain propose a "Federal Gas Tax Holiday" as a way to ease the burden of high oil prices. McCain has no real plan to recover the $10 billion in lost revenue, but Hillary does. A "windfall profit" tax on the oil companies that will essentially make them pay for the missing revenue. Sounds great, until even the most amateur economic mind puts an ounce of critical thought into the concept.

So we'll cut the federal gas tax ($0.18/gallon) during the summer and then we'll tax the oil companies for the lost revenue. The oil companies will then raise their prices to compensate for the new taxes, which will then show up at the pump, making the tax holiday essentially worthless. Great job Hillary.

ANWAR should be familiar to all of us, if not, check out the link. This area is a vast and plentiful source of oil- the largest reserve the US has. Opponents environmental grounds for not drilling are becoming less and less persuasive as the price of gas (and everything else by derivative) keeps increasing. Now they claim that even if we started drilling, we wouldn't see a drop of oil for ten years, which is why we shouldn't drill... Aside from that argument making little sense, there is one glaring fact that has to be addressed when ANWAR opponents bring this up: In 1995 (when oil was $19 a barrel), President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have opened up ANWAR for oil exploration. If we had started drilling in 1995, we would be up to our knees in home-grown, US oil today and maybe prices wouldn't be so high.

The democrats have been the chief obstructionists when it comes to drilling for US oil. Clinton vetoed the bill in 1995, and several times since then they have successfully defeated any attempts to create a budget or a bill that allows for ANWAR drilling. Their lack of foresight on this issue (as well as many other issues) is borderline criminal, and should be punished severely...

How you ask? At the polls. Any politician (most of them democrats) should not be voted for if they have had any history of not wanting to drill for US oil, or if they do not promise to support efforts to tap into US oil resources in Alaska and elsewhere.