No Thanks, I Need All My Fingers

Check out this this article on "sabering" champagne from Tuesday's Democrat & Chronicle. This is a method of opening a champagne bottle using a "sword" or other large knife.

I wonder how many Rochesterians will be "toasting" the New Year at a local Emergency Room because they decided to give this idea a try? I also wonder if they will sue the D&C for putting the idea into their heads?

I'm going to go with the safe old "cover the bottle with a towel so that the cork doesn't put someone's eye out" method. That way I won't have any blood or broken glass in my Dom Perignon (okay, my J. Roget's).

Any way you open it, have a Happy New Year!

He's Got A Friend

As noted in the Democrat & Chronicle over the past few days, Governor Paterson's budget proposal has been battered by criticism from all quarters.

In fact, after reading all of the stories trashing the budget, I'd say that there are only two people in the State who have not criticised the proposal; Governor Paterson himself and Caroline Kennedy.

End Of STAR?

Tucked away in the recesses of today's stories on Governor Paterson's budget proposal was a note that he wants to do away with the STAR real property tax rebate that has subsidized school tax payments for many New Yorkers.

I have always believed that STAR was the ultimate shell game. It amounts to being bribed with our own money. But, for many seniors, the STAR plan has meant little or no school tax expense. If STAR is really ended, there will be an outcry like New York politicians have not heard in a long time. I foresee a wheelchair and walker march on Albany to protest this program being cut.

Ending STAR will also put more pressure on School District budgets. Seniors, effectively bought off with their STAR rebates, have stayed home on school budget votes. Without STAR, they will swarm to the polls to vote no on school spending.

I don't think this cut will survive to become law. Seniors vote and legislators know it. They won't cross that interest group.

Better Start That Diet!

I am going to head back to the gym and start my New Year's diet a bit early.

I read the paper this morning and read about the "Obesity Tax". Yikes! Today a tax on sugary drinks, tomorrow a surcharge on KFC. I figure it won't be long before guys like me who weigh over 275 will start paying an income tax surcharge for every pound over a "healthy target weight".

Seriously, there isn't much left between us and the nanny state. Everywhere we turn, we are being told what to eat, what to drive, where to set the thermostat, etc. I'm worried that the liberals who have taken over all the branches of government in Washington and Albany will have guys like me in their sights.

I mean, I put sugar and half and half in my regular coffee (that's three food police violations right there). I use butter instead of margarine and I love roast beef. I'm probably headed for a re-education camp where I'll learn to like whole grains, green vegetables and cottage cheese.

I may move to Canada after all. At least I can still get bacon and eggs there.

Big Three Bail-Out. First Step On Road To Government Managed Economy?

I am deeply troubled by the "bail-out fever" that has overcome Washington and, apparently, the nation. I don't have any facts or brilliant rationale behind this view, I just think it is a very serious mistake to give the government so much control over our lives.

Make no mistake, these bail-outs come at a price which is larger than the dollar amount involved. The government getting a stake in major industries means control over them. For example, if we bail-out the "Big Three", consumers will no longer decide what cars are made based upon which cars we want to buy, the "car czar" will decide what types of vehicles are made available to us based upon things like fuel economy and other things that are "good for us".

Frankly, I'm appalled at the spectacle of the Big Three CEO's begging for money. The pitiful scene was made worse by the fact that half the reason for their need for help is the regulations imposed on them by the Congress they were begging from.

As Holman Jenkins notes in this article from The Wall Street Journal, there is a big problem with the proposed rescue plan; to wit: "[t]o become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss". His article goes on to point out how CAFE standards set by Congress, along with the lawmaker's allegiance to (and fear of) the UAW, have been the catalyst for a great deal of the automakers' problems.

The more general problem is the fact that we are quite possibly seeing the first steps in the "nationalization" of the US economy. The free market, which has ruled in America since its inception, and which, I believe, is responsible for our prosperity, may be giving way to a state managed economy. Worse, business leaders, first in the banking industry, and now the auto industry are asking the government to take over. They should be fighting this, kicking and screaming; instead, they are begging for government "help".

Worst of all, President Bush is apparently going along with this plan. Why? Isn't it obvious to him that the Democrats just want him to sign off on the "first steps" down the road to this new economic reality? Thus, next year, when they make the really dramatic changes, they can say "hey, George Bush was behind it". He's giving them cover. Why?

The whole bail-out mentality really troubles me. Lenders, borrowers, businessmen, none of them want to be responsible for their plight. They all want someone else to rescue them from mistakes they made. Why should we do it? And how long can we afford to do it? I'm not an economist, but I truly believe that if we continue on this path, our economy will be ruined and our future will not be anywhere near as prosperous as our past.


UPDATE 12/13:

Check out this PowerLine article. It contains sentiments similar to mine regarding the way in which the Bush Administration has chosen to deal with the auto industry bail-out. The following lines from that article reflect my views completely:

"To me, the most disheartening aspect of the current bailout spree is the spectacle of executives from the banking, investment banking, insurance and auto industries begging the government for cash like teenagers who have blown their allowances and are abjectly asking their Daddy for more money. The government as Daddy--wasn't that supposed to be a liberal concept?"

Paterson, D&C Wrong on Court Picks

As you have probably read, Gov. Paterson indicated that he was "disturbed" by the composition of the list of Court of Appeals nominees selected by the Commission on Judicial Nomination. An aide indicated that Paterson was disturbed by the lack of diversity of the group, which included seven men, one of whom was African-American.

The D&C weighed in yesterday with and editorial stating that the Commission should go back and try again. Mr. Lawrence and the D&C Editorial Board also feel that diversity was not served by the nominations.

Well, I guess the notion that Barak Obama's election might usher in a period of post-racial politics may have been a little over-hyped. It appears that the Governor and the D&C think that diversity is the number one qualification for nomination to the State's highest Court. The complaints seem a bit hollow since the NY Court of Appeals is already a very diverse group, including four women, one of whom is Hispanic, as well as an African-American.

One would think that the most important criterion for elevation to the Court of appeals would be legal and judicial acumen. I guess I was wrong there. But if you carry the diversity argument to its logical conclusion, in a case where the seven most qualified nominees were all women or African-American or Hispanic, some of them would be expected to be left aside so that a mediocre white male could be nominated.

That would be disturbing. I know Justice is supposed to be blind. Doesn't that include color-blind?

Random Thoughts

Just some musings about a few things which made the news lately.


Detroit Three Bailout:

Did you happen to see the comments made by GM CEO Waggoner last week? He was expressing disappointment about the reception he and his fellow tin-cup holding auto execs got in Washington and noted that Congress' thinking on the auto industry "was a little stale". I wonder how he would characterize his thinking about flying into D.C. on private jets while pleading poverty?

How about "a little arrogant"?


Albany Special Leg. Session:

While almost everyone would agree that our State Legislature is particularly dysfunctional, the failed special session called by Governor Paterson was especially so. There was so little chance that anything would be accomplished that one wonders why they spent the money to hold the session.

I don't think any of the "three men in the room" distinguished themselves, but I don't get the particular criticism of GOP Senate leader Skelos. It is clear that he and his GOP fellows have no stomach for taking steps to help the Democrats fix the budget, but it wasn't as though the Senate GOP stopped everything. Sheldon Silver did not speak a word in public about getting his caucus to support the Governor. Skelos could have pulled off a real coup by actually agreeing to cuts and forcing Silver to put up or shut up.

Instead we will all wait another couple months while the Albany deficit grows larger.


Obama's Cabinet:

Its really looking like Clinton redux given the majority of Obama's picks being Clintonistas. The left is chagrined. Its hard to believe that Hillary could have picked many more former Clinton aides if she had been elected. Who knows. Maybe Obama really wants to govern closer to the middle than we thought. Or, maybe, this is a feint since he knows that the liberal Pelosi-Reid Congress is going to serve up a left-wing agenda that will warm the hearts of the Kos crowd. then, if things go badly, he might have plausible deniability.


Palin's Turkey Shoot:

The left is so afraid of Sarah Palin, its amazing. The stir caused by her interview at the turkey farm was beyond belief. She did the pardon thing for one lucky bird, but as she was giving an interview, other less fortunate Toms were being readied for Thanksgiving (in the background as she spoke).

From the reaction by liberals, you'd have thought that she was a serial killer. A PowerLine reader opined that Palin should have indicated that she was sorry about the slaughter of those innocent birds and, so as to assuage the left's feelings, she'd do her next interview from an abortion clinic.


GOP "Uncivil War":

There have been a number of stories in the news about the fight for the soul of the GOP. Who will win, the moderates, the conservatives, the evangelicals? I have found it particularly funny that many people claim that the GOP was 'hijacked" by the "Christian Right".

I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion. It seems to me that in all of the years since Ronald Reagan was elected, all the evangelicals got from the GOP was a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, the "defense of marriage act", and a failed attempt at keeping a brain dead woman alive.

I guess those Christian fundamentalists need some lessons on hijacking. Maybe they could get some from Islamic fundamentalists.

The More Things Change.....

The more they stay the same. Or so the saying goes.

Obama was the candidate of "change" but so far, the people he is talking to regarding administration posts are all Democrat stalwarts. Rahm Emannuel and John Podesta held important posts in the Clinton Administration. Obama dusted off Warren Christopher to help him with staffing the State Deprtment.

The people being discussed for Secretary of State are not new faces, either. John Kerry apparently wants the job. The current speculation centers on Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. I wonder how quickly the bloom will be off Obama's rose with his young, left-wing supporters, if conventional picks prove to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Meanwhile, there is the planned meeting between Obama and John McCain. My initial reaction was "what's this all about". I know McCain wants to be "Mr. Bi-Partisan" and, certainly, all Americans of goodwill should keep an open mind and be supportive of our new President.

Still, McCain should tread carefully. Surely, he is not in line for any Obama administration post. But he should also refrain from offering to be Obama's "spokesman" or liaison to the GOP caucus in the Senate. He needs to wait to see whether or not Obama really intends to be everyone's President or the leader of the Kossacks and the MoveOn crowd.

McCain got the GOP nomination, but he never won the party's heart. He is not the leader of the GOP and he should not purport to represent anyone but himself and his Arizona constituents with regard to "working with Obama".

Obama: Post-Racial After All?

Barak Obama was often touted as a "post-racial" candidate by the media. this despite the fact that he actually often implicitly or explicitly attributed racist motives to critics and criticism. Right up to Election Day, I would not have said that anything had changed.


Obama's election has caused me to rethink that view. First the overwhelming joy and pride his election has instilled in African-Americans, is a phenomenon that I had not anticipated. The single "step" of electing a black man as President may well have created the opportunity for "a giant leap" forward in race relations in America.


For one thing, the "race card" ought to receive a quick burial. The fact is that a black man was elected President. 52% voted for Obama. It is certainly an understatement to assume that at least half of the 47% who voted for McCain did not do so on race grounds. Thus, its no exaggeration to say that for at least 75% of the American electorate, race is not a factor affecting their vote. America can not fairly be called a racist country.


As such, politicians and pundits who try to dismiss critics as racists should be rebuked. There will be many things done by an Obama Administration that I won't like. I intend to express my criticism when appropriate. In the past, as I noted here, I might have done so with some trepidation. That should no longer be true. The Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton-David Gantt, race-card mentality should not be allowed to persist.


Of similar (and perhaps, greater) importance is the example that has been created by the election of the President Obama and the elevation of the Obama's as the First Family. On election night, the Obama family stood on the stage. You had a husband and wife, mother and father, and their children. Lets not kid ourselves, the black family, once one of the strongest institutions in our country, has fallen on hard times. It is much more common today that a black child lives in a single parent home or with a relative other than his/her mother or father.


The Obama family can be an example to African-Americans across the country. The Obama family may be the Huxtables on steroids, as far as example and inspiration go. The D&C's Jim Lawrence pointed this out in his editorial entitled Mentor in Chief. Hopefully young blacks will understand the value of education, marriage, and work. They will see the fact that being well educated, well-spoken, well-dressed, well-mannered, etc., leads to success. They will have reason to believe that the American Dream can apply to them if they act responsibly to attain it.


I have great doubts about the likelihood that President Obama's policies will be successful. He was and remains an extreme liberal. Nonetheless, if his election does have the salutary effects noted above, his election will indeed have been "historic".

Countdown to Election Day

There are only a few days left until we choose a new President. While there are some signs of a tightening race, the election remains Obama's to lose.

On one hand, you might wonder how it could possibly be close. Howard Fineman, writing in Newsweek, pointed out the challenges facing McCain. Some of the key points:

"Consumer confidence is at an all-time low. The job performance rating of the outgoing Republican president is at Nixon-Carter levels. Nine out of ten voters think the country is off on the wrong track. The Democrats lead in the generic congressional preference vote by a double-digit margin.

Obama has outspent McCain on TV advertising three or four to one (though McCain is matching him in some key states here at the end). Obama has four thousand paid organizers in key states, an unheard of number. Most voters think that McCain’s running mate is not qualified to be president. Many people wonder aloud if McCain is in fact too old (72) to be president. Much of the media coverage of Obama has been fawning to say the least, and with good reason. He is one of the most winsome, charismatic candidates to have appeared on the scene in decades."

Still, the race is apparently not quite over. It may be that thanks to "Joe the Plumber", some of Obama's real ideas slipped out through the protective screen thrown up by the media. Frankly, most Americans don't agree with the central tenets of Obama's plan of action; namely, redistribution of wealth and further expansion of government into more parts of our lives.

Charles Krauthammer has written two consecutive endorsements of a McCain Presidency. His analysis is clear. He makes the case for McCain better than anyone else I've read.

I just don't know if there is enough time for doubts about Obama to stop his coronation.

GOP's "Big Tent" Empties

The nomination of John McCain was supposed to be the culmination of the effort to draw more moderates into a broader and more diverse Republican party. I admit that I was swayed by the notion that a McCain candidacy was likely to draw moderates and independents.

Strangely, though, we have seen a parade of moderate Republicans repudiate McCain and throw in their lot with Barack Obama. Colin Powell, William Weld, Kenneth Adelman are notable among them. What can explain this?

Frankly, I was perplexed until I heard Rush Limbaugh discuss the issue. Among other things, Rush read this column by Charles Krauthammer during his show. He also played some clips of Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress.

Taken together, I now understand that for many people, whether they be politicians, journalists, scholars, or bureaucrats, the allure of the Washington spotlight is too much to resist. It is clear that the desire to curry favor and remain relevant to the inside-the-beltway powers that be, trumps principle, loyalty and personal dignity.

Krauthammer's article eloquently called out those shallow politicos and pundits. The clips of Greenspan were sad and disturbing. In order to preserve his "reputation" with the liberals who appear to be coming into complete control in Washington, he meekly expressed his "shock" at the "failure of the markets". Thus, having pleased the liberal nabobs on the committee by blaming capitalism (rather than pointing out the failure of government, including Congress, or his own errors as Fed Chairman) for the economic crisis, he assured himself a continuing seat at the table.

The future of the GOP and the conservative movement do not and can not include such people. The reality is that the middle of the road is where the line is. If you go there, you get run over. Partisanship is not a dirty word if it means standing up for principle.

The GOP's big tent is coming down; I say good riddance.

Opinion Polls and Tea Leaves

There have been a number of polls released recently that have some Conservatives hoping against hope that McCain still has a shot. His supporters are trying to sift through the data to divine some sign of a tightening of the race.

I remain hopeful but skeptical.

Lets face it, McCain is campaigning hard in North Carolina and Indiana. He's fighting to hold on to Florida and Missouri. Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964, but it appears lost to Obama. If these are the toss-up states, I fear an electoral vote bloodbath.

We can only hope Obama doesn't have coattails. Republicans need to hang on to enough seats in the Senate and House to remain relevant. Right now, that's not guaranteed. It could be a long, cold four years.

UPDATE: As if we needed confirmation, check out this article from the US News.

Kuhl Must Be A Lock

I had read and heard that Randy Kuhl's re-election campaign was going pretty well, but now we have confirmation of sorts; to wit: the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle has given Kuhl its endorsement.

Anyone who is a long-time reader of the D&C knows that they endorse a few Republican candidates each election cycle, just to "prove" that they are "fair and balanced". A review of those GOP endorsements, however, reveals that the D&C's usual modus operandi is to endorse only those Republicans whom they expect to win.

I can't think of an endorsement of a Republican candidate who was not the favorite, nor even one where the race really hung in the balance, and where the D&C endorsement might push the Republican over the top.

So congratulations may be in order for Congressman Kuhl, if the D&C's endorsement history is any guide.

The Last Debate

Last night, John McCain did as well as he has in any of the debates. He was clearly on the attack and he had Obama acting rather defensive.

Still, I don't think it was a "game changer". As I wrote in my inaugural Monroe Rising post, I think Obama and the Democrats are poised for a big win on November 4th.

One reason is the fact that Obama continues to glibly skate away from any claim and from any fact that might be perceived as negative. He coolly denied his pro-abortion votes in the Illinois Legislature, secure in the knowledge that his media allies won't do a "fact check".

The fact is that he voted against a law that would protect the life of a baby which survived an abortion attempt. He also voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions. Most telling was the fact that he cast those votes in committee, behind closed doors. Then, our courageous Senator Obama voted "present" on the same bills when they went to the floor for open votes.

I guess he was protecting women....and his future candidacies. Too bad the national media will let him get away with it.

Repoman at Monroe Rising

I wanted to let all of you "fans" know that I am going to be posting at Monroe Rising from time to time, as well as here at the Moot Points blog.

Monroe Rising is a top-notch local Conservative blog. It gets a lot of traffic and a good deal of commentary. Many excellent bloggers post there and I was happy to be able to join them.

Check it out!

Time's Running Out For McCain

John McCain did pretty well last night, but I doubt anyone thinks he scored enough points to change the dynamic of the race. There were a couple of places where he could have hammered Obama (e.g., on Obama's epiphany on nuclear power) but he did not throw the knock-out punch.

He also failed to really tie Obama to Bill Ayers in any meaningful way. For some reason, it just doesn't appear to be in McCain's nature to really go for the throat.

While there is some tentative evidence that the race may be tightening a little, I'd say that if its true, its as much due to Palin as it is to McCain. I don't think much he did last night really moved the needle. Clearly, he's running out of time to make that happen.

Moreover, I, like many conservatives, was floored by his announcement regarding directing the paydown and renegotiation of delinquent mortgage loans. For a moment, I thought that Obama and McCain had switched bodies (ala "Freaky Friday"). It surprised me that such an anti-capitalist proposal was being pushed by a so-called conservative Republican.

But, lets face it, John McCain is not a regular Republican. I just wish he wouldn't keep reminding conservatives why he wasn't their first choice

Oh, How The Mighty Have Fallen

For the past week, we've been hearing how vital passage of the bailout bill is. Yet, in order to pass it, the once three page bill Treasury Sec. Paulson offered is now several hundred pages and includes the following:

Extensions of the AMT patch, tax deductions on state and local sales taxes, tuition, teacher expenses and real property taxes and tax credits for business research and new market investors;
Energy tax credits and incentives to encourage wind and refined coal production, new biomass facilities, wave and tide electricity generators, solar energy property improvements, CO2 capturing, plug-in electric drive vehicles, idling reduction units on truck engines, cellulosic biofuels ethanol production, energy efficient houses, offices, dishwashers, clothes washers and refrigerators, and fringe benefits for employees commuting by bicycle;
A requirement for private insurance plans to offer mental health benefits on par with medical-surgical benefits;
Tax relief provisions for victims of this summer's Midwestern floods, and Hurricane Ike;
Freezing of deductions for sale and exchange of oil and natural gas, mandatory basis reporting by brokers for transactions involving publicly traded securities and an extension of the oil spill tax;
Economic development credit to American Samoan businesses;
$10,000 tax credit for training of mine rescue team members;
50% immediate expensing for extra underground mine safety equipment;
Tax credit for businesses with employees from an Indian reservation;
Accelerated depreciation for property used mostly on an Indian reservation;
50% tax credit for some expenditures on maintaining railroad tracks;
7-year recovery period for motorsports racetrack property;
Expensing of cleaning up "brownfield" contaminated sites;
Enhanced deductions for businesses donating computers and books to schools, and for food donations;
Deduction for income from domestic production in Puerto Rico;
Tax credit for employees in Hurricane Katrina disaster area;
Tax incentives for investments in poor neighborhoods in D.C.;
Increased rehabilitation credit for buildings in Gulf area;
Reduction of import duties on some imported wool fabrics, transfers other duties to Wool Trust Fund to promote competitiveness of American wool;
Special expensing rules for film and TV productions;
Increasing cover of rum excise tax revenues to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands;
Making it easier for film and TV companies to use deduction for domestic production;
Exempting children's wooden arrows from excise tax; and
Income averaging for Exxon Valdez litigants for tax purposes.

A bill that was so clearly vital needed all of these extra items to be included to get it through? I can only wonder what intelligent leaders around the world think of us today.

I'm sorry, but I'm embarrassed to be an American.

Random Thoughts

The Debate:

I imagine that partisans both think their guy won. I thought McCain had a slight advantage; this was confirmed when I saw that “unbiased” news reports called the debate a draw.

I am in the camp of those who think Obama benefited from the debate more than McCain. His number one goal had to be to “look Presidential” or at least look like he was up to the job. I’d have to say he probably succeeded there.

McCain seemed to me to be the visceral or emotional candidate. Obama seemed like the controlled or programmed one. Obama was better on his feet than I thought he might be, but he pulled it off by using his talking points and standard responses. McCain seemed more genuine.

The debate left me more convinced than ever that if Obama is elected, he will rival Jimmy Carter as being the man most unsuited for the job. Obama will “rule by committee”. He has to. He will rely heavily on his advisers, because he just isn’t capable of decisive, independent action. On the other hand, McCain is certain of his own rectitude. I don’t see him putting too many decisions up to a vote. Perhaps there is something incautious or even dangerous about that, but I think leadership is what Americans really want, not talking points or position papers. That is McCain all day long.

Financial Mess:

If this is the last big issue George W. handles, it is quite apropos that the PR was bungled. How did the administration let the plan get characterized as a “bailout of Wall Street”? I realize that the underlying problems are quite complex, but like so many other things, Bush’s attempts to oversimplify things worked against him.

If there was any doubt about media bias, the fact that the media is covering up the Democrats responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage boom should eliminate it. How can it be that Barney Frank’s 2003 comment* scoffing about Fannie and Freddie’s problems isn’t on the front pages? And why is it that only bloggers can point out Obama’s connections to Fannie and Freddie?

Assemblyman Hoyt:

Frankly, if you aren’t smart enough to know that e-mails are not secure, you’re not competent to be in the New York State Assembly. If his lack of morality doesn’t disqualify him, stupidity should.



* ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Dollars and (Non)Sense

The turmoil in the financial markets continued today as questions abounded over the government's mortgage lender bail-out proposal.

I haven't had enough time to truly digest all of the possibilities and ramifications of the plan, but a couple of things have been bothering me about it.

First, I question whether or not the average Senator or Congressman has a sufficient understanding of economics to render competent decisions regarding the plan. I shudder whenever there is large-scale legislation or government intervention regarding the economy. The Law of Unintended Consequences almost always rears its head in these situations. This is particularly true because our government officials and legislators cannot resist the temptation to pursue political advantage through such efforts.

Lets not forget that a good part of this crisis had its genesis in legislation. The early nineties saw legislation which eliminated distinctions between types of financial institutions in order to 'level the playing field". We also saw lenders being jawboned by government into lending to lower-income, higher risk borrowers on the threat of being called "red-liners". Those efforts set the table for the practices which brought us to the current crisis.

Further, the entire concept of a "bail-out" troubles me. I understand the argument that the situation is so wide-spread that we cannot afford to sit idly by. But what ever happened to the bedrock values which underpinned our country and economy for so long? Concepts like hard-work, thrift, and personal responsibility appear to have become passe.

If all of these bad loans are forgiven, what does that say to the vast majority of borrowers who have cut corners, taken second jobs, scrimped and saved, and paid their bills on time? We will once again be rewarding behavior we do not want and "punishing" behavior we should be promoting. Can the government (meaning us taxpayers) really afford to cushion every economic failure?

Once again, I guess its too soon to really know whether or not this plan is the right move. I just have to wonder if Capitalism is on its deathbed.

New Bills Come of Age

As most of you know, the Buffalo Bills scored a great come-from-behind victory Sunday over the Oakland Raiders.

The Bills had started the season with great promise, winning their first two games. The next three opponents did not seem too tough. Dreams of a 5-0 start and a division lead were on the lips of many Bills fans. But, through the first three quarters of yesterday's game, it looked like the Bills were going to come crashing to Earth. They suffered through a dismal and mistake-filled performance in the face of a young, fired-up Raider squad.

When Oakland scored in the fourth quarter, many Bills fans were suffering deja vu; another hopeful start foundering on the shoals of reality. But this week, the new Bills came of age. Trent Edwards and Marshawn Lynch led a resilient bunch of Bills to two scores and sole possession of first place in their division. Where the Bills of the past few seasons would have folded, these new Bills found a way to win.

I think a new era began in Orchard Park on Sunday.

Obama Misses The Mark

This is Barak Obama's latest ad.



Very witty, no? Well it turns out that the reason John McCain cannot send e-mail is the same reason he can't comb his hair. It is due to his mistreatment by the Vietnamese while he was a POW.

Read more in this PowerLine post.

The Great Divide

It remains to be seen whether or not the Sarah Palin pick turns out to be the decisive move of the 2008 Presidential campaign. Obviously, if she can successfully take on Joe Biden in the VP debate, it will be seen as a vindication of McCain's decision.

What seems beyond debate, however, is the fact that her nomination has exposed the wide gulf between the big city media and inside-the-beltway punditry on the one hand and the average guy (and gal) on the other. The enthusiasm of the GOP base, the swelling crowds of spectators at campaign stops and the spike in donations all speak to the connection Sarah Palin has made with so many Americans. Many of us are head over heels for her. There is something about her that simply resonates.

The contrast with the media is amazing. It is quite funny to listen to the pundits hedge their bets on the "Palin effect". Will it last? Will she make a blunder? Is there a skeleton in her closet? The talking heads want to appear cool , reserved and above it all. They want to be in a position to shake their heads knowingly should she fail. They can't let on that they "feel it" too.

Who knows? Its only been a week. She may turn out to be a flash in the pan (as so many lefty journalists, telling us that these polls are meaningless, hope she will be). My money is on her, though. She is just a breath of fresh air in the musty world of national politics. So many of us hope that she and John McCain will prevail and bring some real and valuable changes to Washington.

I haven't felt so un-cynical about politics for a long time. I sure hope Sarah and John can make this feeling last.

McCain

John McCain had a bit of a tough assignment. He had to follow one of the greatest political performances most Americans have ever seen. He did a pretty good job.

One commentator pointed out that McCain secured the GOP base with the Palin pick so he was free to try to be "the old maverick McCain" from 2000. He did criticise the GOP as having "lost its way" and did emphasize the "scars" he got in some of his battles with the party establishment.

Another twist, McCain downplayed the experience angle (to some extent, he's already won that battle) and went to a newer theme of being a "fighter" and seeking change but "the right kind of change".

I'd call it a good speech, especially in the context of the Palin boom.

One last thing, I read a comment from the National Review Online wherein the writer suggested that in addition to energizing the base, Palin seems to have energized McCain, as well.

I think that's right.

Palin Warms GOP Hearts; Rudy Rips Obama

Sarah Palin passed her first big test with flying colors.

She gave a great speech with poise and humor. Her family and her personal story were clearly things that will help her connect with middle America.

Some of her best lines dealt with the criticism she has endured for her alleged lack of experience.

She pointed out that she had become the Mayor of her hometown and "that her opponents didn't think much of that experience". She went on to say that their criticism may have come from the fact that "they don't know what the job of Mayor requires". She continued, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening".

"We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco".

I loved it!

Earlier, Rudy Giuliani made me proud to have supported his candidacy. Rudy simply ripped Obama to shreds.

There were so many shots, I can barely remember them all. One of the good ones came after Rudy went through a list of Obama flip-flops, saying: "If I'm Joe Biden, I'm thinking I'd better get that VP thing in writing."

Rudy had one other line that was great, but may be lost in the Palin glow. He asked "how dare they ask how Gov. Palin can be a good mother and work as VP? Would they dare ask that of a man?"

Obviously, its a long way from a convention to the White House, but I know the Democrats are worried. The MSNBC crowd was nearly speechless at first after Palin was done. Andrea Mitchell was almost in tears as she asked Rudy if he didn't think his ridicule of Obama was too harsh.

He didn't.

On The Lighter Side

Before the week-end is out, I expect to post something serious about the Palin pick for Veep, but in the meantime, check out this funny post regarding job interviews of the four nominees.

It gave me a chuckle. And, I think its true, as well!

UPDATE: Here's another great and funny post comparing Palin, Biden, and Obama, from Mark Steyn. I found this line quite to the point:

"Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of 'community organizer' and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy."

Let The Campaign Begin

We are in the middle of the kick-off of the serious part of the 2008 race for the White House. Some random thoughts:

Democratic Convention:

A fair analysis would probably say that it was a good convention for Obama and the Democrats. Bill and Hillary Clinton did about all that could be expected of them to try to unite the Dems. Obama's big speech was run-of-the-mill Dem. tripe, but the setting was spectacular.

Veep Picks:

It seems to me that Obama's choice of Biden was clearly a "safe" and "defensive" choice, one intended to help him with a perceived weakness (experience, national security credibility). It was pretty predictable and it was rather old style political calculus from the supposedly "new politics" guy.

The Palin pick caught me short at first. Knowing nothing about her, I immediately assumed that she was chosen simply because she was a woman who might pull a few Hillary voters in. Clearly, that is the take and spin from the Democrats. After seeing her and hearing her speech and learning of her story, I am developing a whole new attitude. She is an incredibly likable, tough, conservative. She is going to appeal to a whole lot of people.

McCain's Campaign:

I have had my doubts about the McCain campaign up until a few weeks ago. I thought they did a great job of bringing the messianic Obama back to Earth. As I noted, I was initially concerned about the Palin pick, but upon surveying the reaction it is clear that McCain helped himself in a couple of ways.

First, as all the pundits agree, it took Obama's speech off the radar screen. You would have had a hard time finding anything out about the speech on the TV or Internet today. Second, and far more importantly, the pick has apparently energized many in the GOP. If you survey the commentary on National Review Online, you will find scores of comments like this:

"Toss me in as another Republican who's ecstatic about this pick and who's writing a check. I teared up as I watched the speech given by Gov. Palin. I haven't been this proud to be a Republican in far too long a time. I am proud we have a bona fide American hero running for president who has the political chops to miraculously energize his base and sucker punch the opposition at the same time."

and this:

"Today, I go from from an ambivalent McCain supporter driven more by fear of Obama to someone who can feel good about the prospects of a McCain administration. If there are a few million more like me, maybe the all-important undercard of Senate and House races won't turn out as badly as some experts are predicting."

here's another:

"[Palin] has thrilled the GOP's conservative base, which can now in good conscience give itself to the McCain candidacy with enthusiasm—not feigned enthusiasm, real enthusiasm—for the first time since the senator entered the race. This has solved McCain's worst strategic problem."

Only time will tell, but, if McCain ultimately pulls out a win, it may be that his campaign operatives will attain the stature of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.

Finally, it wouldn't be a Repoman post if I didn't link to a Victor Davis Hanson comment on the race.

Oil Price Hypocrisy

I heard a radio ad for Eric Massa yesterday. The ad dealt with economic issues.

I was struck by the reference to high gasoline prices. Massa's ad described them in a way that would lead a listener to think that Massa believes high gas prices are "bad" and that he will do something about them.

But isn't this just political hypocrisy? The Democratic party champions higher gasoline prices as the vehicle to get people to move to conserve gasoline and move to alternative fuels. The Democrats routinely told us that we should add taxes to the price of gasoline that raised the price even further, so as to achieve environmental goals.

Massa is strongly supported by the national Democratic party. He knows the Dems stands on the environment, offshore drilling, and energy policy in general. So why is he pretending that he will "do something" about high gas prices?

The Answer? Poll driven hypocrisy.

Just as Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama have changed their no drilling tunes in light of overwhelming public opinion, Eric Massa has chosen to try to deceive the public about his true beliefs and to just tell us what he thinks we want to hear.

A Matter Of Perspective

A few random thoughts on media bias:

Yesterday's Democrat & Chronicle contained a story about the Democrats failed attempts to oust Wayne Zyra as President of the Monroe County Legislature. The report discussed the fact that there were several "party line" votes.

So if the votes were all "party line", why is it that the D&C portrays the GOP as the partisan, unyielding party? Have there been any issues where the Democrats came around and sought a compromise? From my perspective, the past few years have been full of partisan maneuvering by both parties. The Democrats intransigence on the sales tax, David Gantt's antics, Bob Duffy's "reservations" about Ren Square all struck me as partisan politics. The D&C didn't think so.

It seems however, that the term "partisanship" only applies to the GOP's actions. The Democrats, being the noble and progressive public servants that they are, only want what's best for the people. Thus their actions are characterised as righteous efforts at thwarting the GOP's malefactions.

On the national scene, the media's treatment of the Edwards sex scandal is similarly instructive. The New York Times and the other big players in the mainstream media, would not even look into the Edwards story, let alone report on it. The msm quickly dismissed the story as a tabloid fairy-tale.

Lets compare that to the story the Times broke about John McCain and his alleged affair with a lobbyist. The Times didn't have a problem reporting on the "fact" that there were rumors of an affair by McCain. So they reported on those rumors while they would not even check the facts on an actual affair by Edwards.

What could the difference be? I guess its a matter of perspective.

You and what army: continued

The loss of the West's ability to slow down Russia's assault into Georgia is the topic of a pair of articles in the National Review Online.

In this article, Claudia Rosett writes about the fact that with the U.S. out as global policeman, the "outlaw" nations are likely to start taking more liberties. She echoed my comments of yesterday regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. "response":

"Bush, upon his return from Beijing to Washington, having failed to stop the Russian invasion of Georgia by declaring himself “deeply concerned,” issued a tougher statement in the Rose Garden: That by invading a neighboring state and threatening to overthrow its elected government, Russia has committed an action that is “unacceptable in the 21st century.”
Oh really? While declaring this invasion “unacceptable,” the global community of the 21st century seems prepared to accept it in spades."

In his article, Victor Davis Hanson, has a similar point. He discusses the limits of "soft power". His assessment included the following:

"The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).

From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good."

These articles deeply question the resort to soft power that is so in vogue among "progressives". The American left loves to talk, most of our European "allies" love to talk; the Russians would apparently rather act.

Let's not kid ourselves, Barak Obama is in the soft power camp. If he becomes President, we can expect more "action" by our enemies while we talk ourselves silly.

The Drillin' Blues

That may be the name of the fever that is afflicting Liberals when it comes to drilling for oil in the U.S. There is no question that the Libs and the Dems are back on their heels on this issue.

Obama's "nuances" on drilling and oil prices in general have the left in dismay. But what annoys me is the dishonest way liberals portray the issue of whether or not we should drill for more oil in the U. S. Take this New York Times editorial from Sunday's edition. The editorial criticises both candidates views but makes the following statement that has become the left's mantra:

"Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources."

And this op-ed piece by Thomas Freidman, also from the Sunday paper , containing a similar point:

"Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)"

OK, please tell me which Republican politician said we can drill our way out of the crisis? Actually, the GOP has taken the position that we should produce as much oil as we can domestically, while we transition to alternative fuels. The left is so anti-drilling (because they are completely dominated by the environmental extremist crowd) that drilling is a complete taboo. They always sought higher prices so that those prices would force we foolish gas-guzzling Americans to get to alternative fuels (see Friedman's op-ed). And, someone tell the Times, their 3% figure is based on exploration done 20 years ago (since the Dems have even blocked domestic oil exploration). We may have more than we know.

Well, we may be dumb, but we are on to the left on this one. Let's at least get our own oil out of the ground instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.

Yeah, you and what army?

That is my guess at Russian Premier Vladimir Putin's reaction to President Bush declaring the Russian incursion into Georgia "unacceptable".

Why did Bush bother? There is nothing the U.S. can do except splutter. Russia and China are in the process of eclipsing the U.S. as the premier powers on the planet.

Two things separate those nations from the rest. The first is oil wealth. They are actively drilling for, pumping and selling every drop of oil they can and they are reaping massive profits which fund their aggressive policies.

Oh, and note to Nancy Pelosi:

While you are over here "saving the planet" from our relatively eco-friendly oil production efforts, the Russians and Chinese are sucking the oil from their parts of the Earth with little regard to damage to the environment. And, since we need oil and we won't produce our own, we are paying them to do it.

The second thing that differentiates Russia and China is their willingness to take action they deem in their interest without any regard to world opinion. I have to laugh at the politicians who criticise the U.S. for "unilateral" policies. Most of the time we have, at least, tried to get international support. The Russians and Chinese couldn't care less about "world opinion" or what the U.N. says.

The Russians are playing the old fashioned power politics game in Georgia. They used the "oppressed minority" rationale for their incursion, but they are now widening their attack. Their goal is to oust the pro-American Georgian President and get a puppet government in place that will play ball with Russia. The Russians don't like the fact that there are oil and gas pipelines through Georgia that allow other former Soviet Republics to transport their oil and gas to the west without going through Russia.

It looks like we will soon be accepting the unacceptable once again.

Thar's Oil In Them Thar Hills!

There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether or not Barack Obama's claim that proper tire inflation would save as much oil as could be obtained by "all that drilling their talking about".

Many Obama defenders have tried to show that Obama was correct by resorting to data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That data dealt only with off-shore drilling in the outer continental shelf. Some have used only the figures for production from ANWR. None offer an analysis using all of the sources of domestic production, because as this PowerLine analysis clearly shows, to do so makes it clear that Obama's math was off the mark.

Obama has started the process of backing off his no drilling stance, however. One thing we can be sure of; Obama can read a poll as well as any politician who ever ran a focus group.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt chimes in with this post regarding Obama's attempts to stand by his "tire inflation = drilling" claim. The money quote:

"The fact that Obama feels the need to cling to an absurd position in the face of the overwhelming rejection of his facts is disquieting. You can stick to unpopular policies because you believe they are correct and will ultimately bring important results, as President Bush has done in Iraq.

But you cannot stick to made up facts and not prompt serious questions about judgment".

Keep after him, Hugh!

Foreclosure Fallout

Governor Paterson signed new foreclosure legislation into law today. While most commentators have focused on the foreclosure provisions, the law also amended provisions of the Banking Law restricting many practices which many analysts deem responsible for the "sub-prime" crisis.

The part of the bill that restricts foreclosures will certainly ease some of the problems caused by the large number of defaults which have been occurring. The new law requires additional notice and pre-foreclosure work-out efforts. It also calls for conferences after foreclosures begin to give defaulting borrowers every chance to maintain their homes.

The restrictions on lending practices will, however, lead to an almost complete loss of mortgage money for lower-income New Yorkers. There is no doubt that weakened underwriting standards contributed to increased defaults, however, those relaxed standards were encouraged by "advocates" for lower income borrowers who had been "left out" of the housing boom. Now lenders will shy away from any borrower without prime credit ratings. That is being called proper business practice, in today's situation, but 10-15 years ago, lenders sticking to strict underwriting standards were called red-liners and racists.

The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. I remain concerned about the long-term impact on New York's economy.

Another Form Of Inflation

Did you hear about Obama's claim that if driver's just inflated their tires properly, we would save as much oil as we could from drilling off-shore?

Two things amaze me about this. First, its hard to believe that a guy running for President could make a statement so utterly and demonstrably false. He also made it as an offhand manner, which is not consistent with the seriousness of this problem.

The bigger issue for me, though, is the fact that the media has said virtually nothing about this blunder. It is incredible how far the media is going to protect him from his many gaffes. His goofs make Dan Quale look like a brain surgeon.

Moreover, the media is giving the democrats cover on their incredibly stubborn refusal to vote on drilling. Americans clearly want to drill for oil but the Dems are completely in thrall to the environmental lobby. They won't allow a vote. Democrat leaders are trying to recess without the vote and the media is keeping the ploy a secret for them.

The free press has become the free pass for Obama and the Democrats.

Bush League

Some of you who know me, know I'm from Pittsburgh and that I am a long-time (and long suffering) Pirates fan.

Over the past week, the Pirates made some personnel moves that have probably cost them quite a number of fans. They certainly have lost the respect of any knowledgeable observers of baseball.

The Bucs traded three of their best players (Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte to the Yankees; Jason Bay to the Red Sox) for eight minor leaguers. I guess the Pirates figure this is their best shot at a baseball record. They are on their way to tying the record for the most consecutive losing seasons (16, if you are interested). These trades may well insure that they get the record all to themselves after the 2009 season.

Actually, having been to PNC Park a few times, I must say the Pirates put on a good between innings show. They have the Pirogi race, hot dogs shot out of a cannon into the stands, fan contests, etc. It is very reminiscent of the way minor league teams entertain the fans when the baseball just isn't that good.

Maybe that explains the trade. Perhaps these 8 minor leaguers can give the Pirate management some new ideas for between inning fun that they have picked up in Altoona, Omaha, Las Vegas, Pawtucket, Scranton and all the other cities they have played in.

NY Times Takes Gantt to the Woodshed; Sheds No Tears For Upstate

The New York Times published an editorial yesterday morning sharply critical of Assemblyman David Gantt and his "iron-fisted" control of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

The editorial was complaining about Gantt's blockage of legislation which would allow New York City to install cameras on street poles to catch red light violations. The Times had strong words about Gantt:

"Mr. Gantt is a Democratic assemblyman from Rochester. That’s the Rochester that is 333 miles from Times Square. He has long controlled the State Assembly’s Transportation Committee with an iron fist, micromanaging New York City’s traffic from afar and for bewildering reasons. At one point this year, when journalists asked him why he was blocking a particular city traffic bill, he said: “That’s for me to know and you to find out.” So much for transparency in Albany".

The Times should have called Ralph Esposito and asked him what he thought about Gantt's behavior. Ralph would have told them that sounds like the David Gantt he knows all too well.

There were three things that really struck me about the editorial, though. One is the fact that the Times was so hard on a Democrat. They will probably use this editorial to prove that they are "issue oriented" not "agenda oriented". Yeah, right.

Second, I had to laugh at the suggestion that Sheldon Silver should (or would) do anything about Gantt. The editorial called for Silver to remove Gantt, stating:

"It makes no sense for one upstate legislator to strangle progress — and safety — in New York City. This should be a matter decided by New York’s mayor and City Council. Since it is not, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his Democratic majority should replace committee chairmen like Mr. Gantt who have clearly been there too long. If he won’t, the voters should".

Sheldon Silver doesn't do anything he doesn't want to do. David Gantt is on Silver's team and that's all that counts. Which, relating to my previous post, questions the sincerity of Richard Dollinger's call for "change" in Albany. Can he get Shelly to sign on?

Finally, I was amazed at the fact that the Times' editorial board so openly displayed their disdain for "Upstate". While I can understand their impatience with Gantt, their umbrage at the fact that a legislator from Rochester (which is, apparently, 333 miles from Times Square) could impact the mighty Gotham, was surprisingly blunt. I don't recall any editorials lamenting the fact that 99% of the time NY City legislators force their will on Upstate residents.

Oh well, at least they didn't leave any doubt about how they feel about us hillbilly's.

Dollinger on Lonsberry

Democratic State Senate candidate Richard Dollinger filled in today on Bob Lonsberry's show broadcast by WHAM radio.

I wished I could have listened to all of the show and had time to call in. Dollinger spoke approvingly of Barak Obama and indicated his belief that electing Obama would result in "the change we all need" in Washington.

I would loved to have asked Mr. Dollinger what specific changes he was expecting as a result of an Obama presidency. It would be good to hear someone articulate just what specifically Obama should be reasonably expected to do as President.

Mr. Dollinger also spoke of needed changes in Albany. I guess he hopes to be part of the change. I'd like to know if Mr. Dollinger thinks that we should expect anything new from Sheldon Silver, or if the only change really needed in Albany is a turn to complete Democrat control of State government.

Dollinger spent much of his opening remarks talking about the Hilton Fireman's festival. He lauded the Village of Hilton and the Hilton firemen. He spoke of how vital they were to creating the sense of community in Hilton. I wonder if he has an opinion on local government consolidation? The Democrats in Albany and in the County Legislature and the Democrat & Chronicle editorial page, regularly insist that we have too many local government units, like the Village of Hilton and the Hilton Fire District.

So which is it, Mr. Dollinger? Do you support these entities or do you support consolidation? Or, do you have one view as a candidate but plan to act on a different one if you are elected? Maybe that would explain why you are so supportive of Mr. Obama. Running one way but planning to govern another is right out of Obama's playbook.

D&C Double Talk on Oil

This morning's editorial in the Democrat & Chronicle really rubbed me the wrong way. It was typical of the D&C's editorial board (and was clearly a Tom Tobin piece) in that it included both a cheap shot at George Bush and hypocrisy on oil prices.

The editorial ostensibly commenting on the President's decision to lift the executive ban on off-shore oil drilling, quickly launched into the obligatory criticism of George Bush. In this case, his order is "too little, too late". For the D&C, there is nothing George Bush can do that gets praise. If there is a story or editorial comment which mentions the President, it contains some criticism. If Bush discovered a cure for cancer, the D&C would find a way to diminish the discovery. I don't know what Tom Tobin will write about once Bush is out.

Equally annoying was the part of the editorial which contains the standard liberal hypocrisy on gasoline prices and energy policy. Tobin's editorial contains these paragraphs:

"And the history, to be complete, would have to detail how the American consumer time and again took the gas-guzzling path even in the face of global warming and an unhealthy dependency on imports.

There are consequences to inaction of this kind, and America is seeing them now. Presidents don't pump their own gas every morning or shop for products whose prices have spiked in part because of fuel costs. Ordinary Americans do. As always, the pain of poor policy is visited on those who had the least to do with devising it."

This is vintage Tobin and vintage "progressive". Tobin claims to decry high gas prices and the "pain" they cause consumers. Yet, he also criticises those consumers for using too much gasoline. Moreover, he, like most liberals in thrall to the environment lobby, actually supported high gasoline prices as a way of forcing consumers to change their ways.

This is the "big lie" for liberals. For years they supported higher gasoline taxes to raise the price of gasoline to encourage development of alternatives. They apparently did not care about "the pain" those higher prices would cause consumers. Now that consumers (read "voters") are angry about the price of gas, liberals cry crocodile tears about those prices and try to blame others.

Finally, regarding the Democrats argument that drilling now won't help with oil prices now, recent events may already be proving that wrong. The mere discussion about drilling has had an effect on the oil futures market, part of the cause for the downtrend in the price of crude oil.

The editorial is correct about the need for a comprehensive energy policy. But that policy needs to include drilling for and producing oil in the US.

Oil And Politics: Part Two

To my mind, there has been no greater failure on the part of our national government than its failure to enact a viable energy policy. Given the impressive number of failures of our government, that's saying something!

Since the 1970's, we have known that our economy was at risk of being "held hostage" by our dependence on foreign oil supplies. Yet, we have fiddled, Nero-like, as Rome burned.

Who is "to blame"? Well, there's plenty of blame to go around, but its not really relevant anymore. The real issue is what can we do now. Part of the reason for the current inaction in Washington is that desire to "pin the blame" on one side or the other. We need to demand that our so-called leaders stop playing politics and start doing their jobs.

Mortimer Zuckerman, editor of The U.S. News & World Report, has written a very compelling article which appeared in Real Clear Politics. In it, he points out that both reductions in consumption and increases are required. He forcefully opined that its time that a bi-partisan plan be enacted, stating:

"The clear implication for the United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both."

Zuckerman believes that we should enact serious CAFE standards to reduce consumption of oil, similar to those in Europe. He points out that Congress would have passed such standards in 1990 but for the efforts of Michigan politicians to thwart such action. Had they been enacted we would now be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day.

He also calls for more domestic production and refining capacity. He explains the immediate, as well as longer-term benefits of doing so. Further, he criticised over-zealous environmental advocates, who he believes fail to acknowledge advances in technology which reduce risk of harm to the environment. An example of his views in this regard as to drilling in ANWR:

" This would do no permanent damage to an environment in one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent—except to inconvenience some caribou that might have to find a different place to mate. We cannot lose over $40 billion a year to serve the caribou."

In conclusion, Zuckerman offered five more steps to take in conjunction with the above-referenced efforts:

"1. Reallocate resources to concentrate funds on providing the necessary R&D support for energy efficiency. We must do this with the real menace of global warming in mind. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, frames the issue this way: Our biggest worry is not what we put in our cars but what we put in our power plants. He believes that we should stop the use of coal by 2030, except with those power plants that can capture the carbon dioxide.

2. Fix our mass transit system for both freight and passengers. When you consider rail in terms of energy, steel wheels on steel rails are some 10 times as efficient as rubber on roads. A real rail program could probably have the single greatest impact on our oil consumption and on the release of carbon dioxide. A single locomotive run by two men can haul the same amount of freight as 70 modern semitrailer truck rigs with 70 drivers. One passenger train can take 1,000 cars off the road.

3. Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks immediately.

4. Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

5. Pursue alternative energy technologies within the limits of the market."

Victor Davis Hanson also has similar views regarding Washington's failure to address these serious problems. His July 8th "Works And Days" blog post included these paragraphs:

"Worried about Congressional rankings in the single digits, Democratic Senators and Congress people are parading out to news conferences to assure us that “we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis” (who said we could?), and that what little oil we would find off our coasts (no mention of the natural gas) would “take ten years” and only shave “pennies” off a gallon of gas. Examine the logic: we don’t develop these resources because of the time lag? But isn’t there a time lag in creating a viable electric battery, a hydrogen car, solar and wind farms, a new nuclear plant? And the logic is puerile: we simply freeze and assume a fetal position since the results of our labors are only of long-term use?

As for a “few pennies.” Well, a few pennies here, a few there really do add up. In other words, a million barrels in ANWR, a million off our coasts, a million from tar sands, a million in shale, a million on the continental shelf, a million from conservation and pretty soon we have saved trillions in imported oil costs, and provided the necessary bridge, the critical breathing space for electric cars or flex-fuels, or whatever. No supporter of drilling thinks we are going to return to the days of the gas-powered Yukon and Hummer. But we need to preserve our civilization and not mortgage it to the Arabs, Russians, Iranians, and Venezuelans in the process of going green."

It has been 35 years since the OPEC oil embargo. Can it be that our leaders have failed to take the steps needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It is failure of the greatest magnitude. There is no easy solution now, but its time to start.

There is no reason to believe we will get any relief, at least on the domestic production side, if Obama becomes President. The Democrats are wholly committed to over-zealous environmentalism. Nancy Pelosi was quoted in the New York Times as saying ... "if Democrats relented on drilling, 'then we might as well pack it up and go home'.” Given that view, our only hope is John McCain.

McCain has been almost as bad as the Democrats on domestic production. He only recently came around on off-shore drilling. He needs to move farther and be bolder on this issue. It is perhaps the only issue on which the GOP can have the upper hand over the Dems in the minds of the public.

As things stand now, it is my view that Barack Obama will be elected President. McCain needs something to change that dynamic. $5.00 gasoline may do it. McCain needs to take the position that the price of gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil are threatening our economy, indeed, our very way of life in America. He needs to propose steps similar to those outlined by Zuckerman. Obama and the Democrats are wedded to their enviro-zealot supporters. The average American will welcome the chance to assert American determination to solve this problem and to stop pouring money into our enemies coffers.

I hope McCain is smart enough to seize the opportunity.

Developing Nations Cool To G8 Global Warming Trend

The world leaders at the G8 summit espoused their commitment to cutting global carbon emissions. China and India demurred.

As noted in this Daily Telegraph editorial, the leaders of the G8 appear totally committed to slashing carbon emissions, even though scientists are starting to have second thoughts. Calling their views "cuckoo" the editorial noted:

"If the G8's leaders genuinely wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent over the next 40 years, this would mean taking steps they haven't even begun to contemplate. It would require such a drastic cut in our energy use and standard of living that their peoples would have risen up in mass revolt long before the target was reached."

Shockingly, George Bush was given the only accolade the editorial had for the summiteers, stating:

"And nothing better shows up the unreality of all this - as President Bush tried to point out in the summit's only flash of honesty - than the fact that China (not represented at the G8, although it now has the world's fourth largest economy) is already putting out more CO2 than anyone else. As it builds two new coal-fired power stations a week, China has no more intention than India of joining the Western economic suicide club."

Just what is the optimum temperature of the Earth, anyway? Are we really sure enough of the science on this to risk crashing the economies of the major Western powers? Its not as though our economy is in such great shape that we could risk an additional setback.

Frankly, most people won't long stand for policies that stunt economic growth and cause energy prices to rise. There have already been signs that Americans are beginning to move away from radical environmentalism.

Not a moment too soon.

Golisano's Golden Rule

Joe Spector posted the following story on the D&C "Political Scene" Blog:

"Tom Golisano, the billionaire founder of Paychex Inc., is unveiling his new political action committee tomorrow in Albany, called Responsible New York.

Golisano, the three-time gubernatorial candidate, is expected to announce that he will put $1 million into races where he thinks the incumbent hasn't been doing a good job. He is already set to put his money into backing three Senate Democratic candidates; "Baby" Joe Mesi, who is running for a seat being vacated by Sen. Mary Lou Rath, R-Amherst, Erie County; Kathy Konst, who is expected to run against Sen. Dale Volker, R-Depew, Erie County; and Richard Dollinger, who is running against Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece.

He is also said to be considering backing Democrat David Nachbar, a millionaire in his own right, in Nachbar's quest to unseat Republican Sen. James Alesi, R-Perinton."

What is most apparent to me about Tom Golisano is his ego.

He has apparently decided to use his money to deliver the NY State Senate (and thus, complete control in Albany) to the Democrats. Maybe the Senate will be called the "Golisano State Senate", since he usually needs to have his name attached to the things he supports financially.

Meanwhile, where is the criticism of abuse of wealth by a "fat-cat"? I have read many rants in the D&C against rich power brokers when those benefited by such largess were Republicans. There was a feeble effort at criticism of money in politics in this editorial, in yesterday's D&C, but it only mentioned Golisano in passing.

It appears that the criticism from Mr. Tobin and the D&C is muted if the money goes to pols they support.

Make Mine Rare

Based upon the details in this editorial from the Democrat & Chronicle, I'd say that Denver steakhouse owners should be prepared for some booming business during the Democrat convention in August.

The D&C reported that the Dems efforts to have a "green" convention include stipulations that food for 40,000 be "locally grown and organic" and another that "each plate must be 50 percent fruits and vegetables". In addition, "caterers must provide food in at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white".

When those Democrat delegates get out of the Convention Hall, they are going to be hungry. I'm betting the color they'll be looking for is "pink"..... in the center of their porterhouse.

More From Hanson

OK, OK, I know I'm always pushing Victor Davis Hanson on you. But you have to read this essay by VDH from the National Review Online (courtesy of Real Clear Politics).

This piece is basically his Fourth of July reminder that we live in America, not simply the greatest country on Earth, but the greatest country in the entire history of the planet!

Not only do I agree with Hanson, but he backs up his opinions with factual, historical arguments. I only wish some of the whiners out there would read stuff like this and be embarrassed for themselves. Maybe if they stopped looking for someone to solve all of their problems, they might realize that we have it pretty good in America.

Moreover, I wish we had a couple of members of Congress who would stop playing partisan politics and take the steps Hanson writes about, which could correct the problems we do have. It might be nice, for example, if we had fewer Congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball and more work on real issues.

Proud to be an American

Today is the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

When I think about the Founding Fathers, I always end up focused on the last line of the Declaration which states:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor".

Many of them gave their lives and fortunes to the cause. I thank them for it. I often wonder where the likes of the Founders are today. Maybe some of them are in Iraq. Please look at this PowerLine post, which describes the largest single re-enlistment ceremony in the history of the US military.

PowerLine quotes General David Petraeus on the event: “ [It is] impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

Thank God for those brave men and women. Apparently God still does bless America.

I wonder if this kind of event makes Michele Obama proud of America? I know it makes be proud and thankful to live here.

Obama: A "Different Kind of Politician"?

Barak Obama and his supporters have tried very hard to portray him as a different (read: better) kind of politician.

I have seen little evidence to support such a view. He seems to do the things every other politician does, like speak in vague terms, tell people what they want to hear, allow surrogates to attack political opponents, etc. The only real difference seems to be the degree to which the liberal media protects him. For example, after Wesley Clark attacked John McCain's military experience, Obama gave a speech on patriotism. The media reported that Obama had rejected Clark's criticism. In fact, he never mentioned Clark or McCain. But the media felt the need to shield Obama from any fallout from Clark's nasty remarks.

If you want to know more about the real Obama, you have to read other sources, like V. D. Hanson, Micle Malkin, or PowerLine. There is some very interesting commentary in this PowerLine post.

It could just be me but I think Obama is old school.

Brooks Recommends Reilich

County Executive Maggie Brooks made a smart choice with her recommendation to have Assemblyman William Reilich replace Steve Minarik as Monroe County GOP Chairman.

Reilich has the skills, experience and personality to carry off what will be a difficult job. As I previously noted, there could have been a perception that Minarik's replacement would be a Brooks' surrogate. By choosing Reilich, Maggie has picked someone who is an ally, but who has had an independent political base and who can credibly claim independence from manipulation.

Bill Reilich is a great guy and is one of those rare politicians who have virtually no enemies. I have heard very few negative comments about Bill over the years. Bill represented part of Gates when he was first elected to the Monroe County Legislature and he always worked very hard for us. His personality and style are clearly suited for the current political atmosphere.

My personal regrets and concerns about Minarik's departure still remain. Steve left very big shoes to fill. But kudos to Maggie Brooks for nominating a person who could quell most of those concerns. This choice is sure to be met with widespread support in the county GOP. I am sure that virtually all GOP party leaders will look forward to working with Bill, as do I.

Oil And Politics

Its beginning to look like the Republican Party may have latched onto a winning argument with the "Drill Here, Drill Now" campaign. A front page story in today's Democrat & Chronicle reported on a poll showing that growing numbers of Americans now perceive increasing domestic oil production as being more important than environmental concerns.

So the GOP has the right message, but do they have the right messenger? John McCain is a global warming supporter who still thinks ANWR should be off limits to drilling. He has recently softened his views on off-shore drilling and, I suppose, an abrupt about-face on ANWR would be met with charges of "flip-flopping" by the Democrats.

Still, McCain needs to come up with a plausible domestic production agenda. The GOP is clearly on the right side of this issue (and has been for 25 years). This is the one issue that could "stanch the bleeding" with respect to Republican losses of seats in Congress. McCain is, for good or ill, the GOP standard bearer. His take on "Drill Here, Drill Now" will be the one that the GOP will have to live with.

My next post will deal with the incomprehensible failure of Congress to enact a serious energy program which combines conservation, increased production and development of new energy resources.

Hanson On The Mark

When I read Victor Davis Hanson's blog posts, articles and books, I almost want to give up blogging. He has usually already written what I am thinking, but in a much more eloquent way.

Here's a link to Hanson's blog. Scroll through it. He is right on the mark about Obama and the Democrat/Liberal elites who are about to gain control of our country. Take a few minutes and read some of his stuff. VDH is the master!

Don't Spend It All In One Place

My wife and I received our "stimulus check" yesterday. It was a whopping $31.30. I have been trying to figure out how I could use it in a way that would best stimulate the sluggish US economy.

The really funny thing about the check was the letter explaining how the amount was arrived at. First, we qualified for $1,200.00 as taxpayers filing jointly. Then we added $600.00 for our dependent children. Great, we were up to $1,800.00! I was ready to start stimulating!

Not so fast said the IRS. It seems that because of our vast, Trump-like income, there was a deduction of $1,768.70. Apparently Uncle Sam thought my last name was Golisano, not DiCaro.

The final irony was the last paragraph which pointed out that low-income Americans, even if they had paid no taxes, would receive $300.00 - $600.00. So, if you were like me and had paid too much in taxes, you got little or no rebate; if you paid no tax, you got a $300.00 - $600.00 check!

You gotta love Congress!

Surrender By Any Other Name

Today the expressions of joy over the demise of the ogre Steve Minarik continued unabated.

In a "Speaking Out" piece in the Democrat & Chronicle, Ed Pettinella, Chairman of the Rochester Business Alliance wrote of his pleasure at the notion that with Minarik out of the way, great success was around the corner due to the incipient collaboration between the GOP and Dems. I know Ed is a really smart guy and crafty businessman, but he's way off the mark here.

Minarik's end is the beginning of the end for Republican control of Monroe County. And, for all of you too young or idealistic to remember or know what its like to live in a Democrat controlled jurisdiction: get ready! You are soon to see what happens when the "progressives" get the chance to "do good" for all those "in need". All of the "good" they do will be at the expense of productive forces in the community.

Meanwhile, Ed, Maggie, don't hold your breath waiting for the Democrats to work with you to bring about Nirvana. Their goal will be to collaborate with you to get what they want; control of the County government.

Oh, and one last question, when did "collaboration" become a good thing? Isn't that what the Vichy French did with the Nazis? At least come up with a better term for what you're doing. Why not use "surrender"?

More Thoughts on Minarik

I read the press release regarding Minarik's departure and some of the comments issued by community and political leaders.

I was particularly struck by the idea that the GOP has to "collaborate" with the Democrats in order to get things done and that Steve had to go because he was too "confrontational".

Well, its true that he was confrontational. I happen to think that one of the problems with the GOP at all levels is their failure to be confrontational. For the Democrats and their liberal media allies, "compromise" and "bi-partisanship" simply mean "give in to what the Democrats want".

Lets look at some examples, like David Gantt, Susan John, David Koon; can you give me any instances of them "compromising"? How about their leader in Albany, Sheldon Silver; he's a regular Henry Clay, isn't he? Or, maybe they're thinking of the Dems in Washington, guys like Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi. They've held out the olive branch to the GOP, no?

If the Republicans in Monroe County think they can hold on to power by trying to emulate the Democrats, they should think again. Parties and politicians need to stand for things. Sure, they need to work together, but compromise cannot be a one-way street. Was Steve Minrik strident? Yes, he was, but you knew where he stood.

Quite frankly, I cannot imagine who would want the job of Monroe GOP Party Chair today. Its clear that the "Chairman" will have little independent power. The GOP is headed for very difficult times at all levels.

Maggie Brooks is a great leader and politician and I like and respect her. I think, however, that she is making a mistake if she believes the GOP can maintain power by "collaborating" with the Democrats. Their only goal is retaking the County Legislature and ousting her from her job. Removing Steve Minarik made their job easier.

Minarik Resignation

I was in Canada enjoying the final day of a family vacation when I learned of Steve Minarik's resignation from the post of County GOP Chairman. The news came as quite a shock.

I have always strongly supported Steve. While some criticised his tactics, the simple fact is that he was great at his job. His job was, after all, to elect Republicans. He did that very well.

Steve was a great friend to me and to the GOP organization in Gates. I am very sorry to see him go. He will be missed.

More From Obama

As I noted in my previous post, Obama's speech on Tuesday was full of references to the type of government we'll have if he becomes President.

Here's an excerpt (with Obama discussing what John McCain would see if he toured America):

"Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need."

"Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future—an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need."

Look, something for everyone! No pain, no worries, the government will take care of everything!

Obama loves victims, doesn't he? He is sure playing to the modern American audience. Nothing is our responsibility. We are "owed" and entitled to our jobs, our leisure, our health. If something goes wrong, its not our job to fix it, somebody (read: government) should step in.

HT to PowerLine.

Obama Locks It Up

Obama has the delegates he needs and Hillary has all but conceded.

I listed to Obama's victory speech on Tuesday night. I saw the crowd of wildly cheering supporters. I still don't get it.

Obama's speech was nothing but platitudes, talking points and pablum. Everyone gets a college education as a birthright. Free health care for everyone from the government. An energy policy that will lower gasoline prices, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and be good for the environment. Improvements in education which (of course) require better pay for teachers. There was, however, no mention of how he would do these things or pay for them.

Obama is a European-style socialist, who will be unrestrained by a liberal Democrat Congress. I fear all of the costly social experiments that are coming our way. It could be a bitter four years.

Wednesday night my daughter got a President's Award for having maintained a 90+ average for all three years of Middle School. The award was signed by George Bush. I told my son that his award will likely be signed by Barak Obama. Unless, of course, that in an Obama Administration, educators are freed from meeting those pesky standards in Bush's No Child Left Behind Law.

I don't like John McCain that much. But right now, I think he's the only thing standing between us and a really bad situation.

Congressional Snake Oil

Yesterday, we saw another round of Congress playing at its updated version of "Bread and Circuses" with its hearing with US "Big Oil" companies.

Senators, Durbin and Schumer were in particularly good form. Durbin plaintively asked how these oil tycoons could live with themselves while causing damage to the American economy. Schumer lectured the executives and asked them how they could work with the regime in Burma.

Two things strike me here. First, it is pathetic that our Congress is reduced to these "spectacles" where political "leaders" try to outdo each other in showing the American people how much they care. There hasn't been a sincere comment coming out of Washington in decades. At least Bill Clinton was able to make us believe he could "feel our pain".

More important, the sheer lunacy of our energy (non) policy is mind boggling. These idiotic Senators berate oil executives for causing the price of gas to go up. This, while our government has become captive of environmental interests that have caused us to lose sight of the appropriate balance between good economic policy and good environmental policy.

We obviously need to protect our physical environment. But there has to be some middle ground between the rape of our natural world and eschewing all attempts to increase our domestic production of oil. This PowerLine post is quite telling in that regard. The PowerLine story is like many others I have read from commentators who wonder how long we will keep subsidizing our enemies while refusing to access our own resources.

I wonder how long the American people will continue to be misled by the diversions from Washington? The hearings excoriating oil execs. The false piety of the environmentalists. How about some more government programs like the rush to subsidize ethanol production?

I wonder if there are any leaders left in America?