Around the horn Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Here are a few items that caught my attention.
First, Charlie Black, a McCain advisor, committed the unpardonable sin of saying something which any honest person knows is absolutely true - if there were another terrorist attack on the US, it would benefit John McCain politically (and it is also a good reason why that won't happen).
Is there anyone out there that doubts the truth of that statement?
What would such an attack do? A) it would focus attention on national security. National security is a typically strong issue for Republicans. B) it would focus attention on Barack Obama's lack of experience in that area. Let's face it, he has none. And C) it would put domestic issues, where Obama has some strength, on the back burner.
Now that's just political reality folks. Apparently, however, discussing such a point is just unacceptable speech in this campaign or so says Team Obama:
The fact that John McCain’s top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change.
Well good luck with that - but the obvious truth of the statement stands on its own.
Meanwhile in Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin has written a "Dear Harry" letter to Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, urging action which will allow drilling in ANWR:
In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and key members of Congress, Governor Palin stressed the need to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres. She also assured members that any development would be conducted in a responsible and environmentally safe manner.
Governor Palin highlights the real reason for our present crisis and it has nothing to do with "Big Oil", CEOs or speculators.
And for those of you who need a visual aid to understand what is being talking about when ANWR is mentioned this may help:
If that doesn't quite get the point across, try this:
This is one domestic issue that, if Democrats stay on the "no drilling side", is going to hurt them. And to this point they still seem to be stuck in the '70s when it comes to the present energy crisis.
And here's a beauty which simply confirms my point about buying into the premises of the left and what that produces:
The White House issued a veto threat against a House bill that seeks to prevent a steep cut in Medicare fees to physicians and is scheduled for a vote Tuesday.
Although the veto threat was expected, it underscores the difficulty facing Congress as it tries to complete its work on Medicare before recessing for Independence Day. If the House and Senate fail to deliver a bill that President Bush will sign, physicians will see their pay rates automatically cut by 10.6 percent on July 1.
Later Tuesday, the House plans to take up the legislation under the suspension calendar, meaning Democrats would have to count on about 50 Republicans voting against their own leadership and the White House to pass the bill.
Nice. You have Republicans in a position to support the veto of a spending cut measure (and yes I understand there is more to it than just the cut to physicians, but they're in this position because they previously bought into the premise mentioned) because in the past they bought into the whole government provided health care premise. And, of course, it is an election year. So on the one hand they'll support increased medicare spending and on the other they'll tell us how they will cut spending if we will just elect them.
Which should we believe?
And finally Joseph Romm takes a swipe at the "alternate energy" crowd by laying out the state of the issue and why the public isn't rushing to the door of the inventors of these new mouse traps:
Other than the traditional media, and some presidential candidates, who are as distracted by shiny new objects as my 16-month-old daughter, nobody should get terribly excited when a car company rolls out its wildly impractical next-generation hydrogen car. Too many miracles are required for it to be a marketplace winner.
Take Honda's new FCX Clarity. As the New York Times reported, "the cars cost several hundred thousand dollars each to produce," although Honda's president Takeo Fukui "said that should drop below $100,000 in less than a decade as production volumes increase."
But why would production volumes increase for a car that delivers no real value to the consumer and has no significant societal benefit to motivate government support? Answer: they wouldn't, so prices may never drop below $100,000.
Government support? Why aren't they attracting private capital investment? For the obvious reason that they're impractical and too expensive with no real possiblity that they'll see the cost drop anytime soon. And that's the way it has been, mostly, for over 40 years.
Yet there's all that oil out there just begging to be pumped out of the ground. But, as Romm points out, our politicians continue to be "distracted by shiny new objects as my 16-month-old daughter."