Filed under: John McCain, 2008 President, Energy

If I may take a break from talking about "cross in the dirt" stories, McCain visited an oil rig today:

McCain rode a helicopter about 150 miles (241 kilometres) off the state of Louisiana's coast to visit the Genesis oil rig.

Jointly owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, the rig represents an environmental risk great enough that the US coast guard has set up a "safety zone" around its perimeter to prevent accidents.

"It is time for America to get serious about energy independence, and that means we need to start drilling offshore at advanced oil rigs like this," the Republican nominee said in his prepared remarks.

McCain and the rest of the GOP are still hammering away on this issue, and rightly so, because the left is giving every indication that they have no stomach for this fight. As was predicted by myself and many others, an election year, pocketbook issues come together to concentrate the mind of many a politician.

Even the hardcore are signalling that this is not the hill they are willing to die on:

That's the game, right there. The floodgates will open because they have to open. There's no way on God's green earth to find veto-proof majorities to re-up that ban, and no bill George W. Bush won't veto to stop it. Not a defense bill. Not a continuing resolution to keep the government running. Not a National Motherhood and Apple Pie Day bill. Nothing.

aThere will be a significant change in the Federal drilling policy within 30 days. Either the GOP will hold firm and get everything they want by default, or they will fold early and get some of what they want with a few bonuses like nuclear plants and subsidies and such. The Democrats are crossing their fingers and hoping for the latter.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John McCain, 2008 President, Media

As a follow-up to the earlier stories from DK and me. From the McCain campaign blog:

The only similarity between the two stories is a cross in the dirt, but it is hardly an unlikely coincidence that there were practicing Christians in both Russia and Vietnam, or that in the prisons of those two Communist countries the only crosses to be found were etched in the dirt, as easily disappeared as the Christians who drew them.

But those desperate to discredit Senator McCain's record will have to impugn his fellow prisoners as well. Orson Swindle, who was held as a prisoner of war along with McCain, tells the McCain Report that he heard this particular story from McCain "when we first moved in together." That was in the summer of 1971, Swindle said, though "time blurred" and he couldn't be sure. He said it was some time around then that the Vietnamese moved all "36 troublemakers" into the same quarters, where they "talked about everything under the sun."

Checkmate. And apologies I'm sure are welcome, but likely not forthcoming from the usual suspects. In fact Andrew Sullivan, who started this mess, doubled down earlier today and offered up a stirring oratory in defense of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

And why are we not allowed to ask these questions, when they relate to one of the most important questions anyone can ask about a president: the question of integrity?

Oops, that wasn't about SBVT, it was about the McCain cross in the dirt stories, but it still works as a defense for a tactic that the left and even McCain himself decries as underhanded and below the belt.

On the earlier threads a couple of commenters accused me of whining against Swiftboat tactics now that "my guy" is the target. Please. I've been consistent... calling in character witnesses for or against a presidential candidate is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in almost all cases. Andrew Sullivan has the perfect right to question McCain's story all he wants. It's a free country and he's free to make a fool of himself.

The main point I'm making is that the left believes that first hand character witnesses killed their guy in 2004 (and it might well have) and they were worried about the same thing happening again. To that end they labeled any kind of investigative research as "swiftboating" in order to have it dismissed in popular media. I have problems with that as I've said, but I'm going to have an even bigger problem with that, if that very same left then goes and uses the exact same tactics against John McCain, but this time without even witnesses! It's beyond brazen, and it's beyond hypocritical and they should be called on it.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Debates, 2008 President

So I had it Tivoed and just had a chance to watch it now. Full transcripts are available here. Quick reactions: Both candidates did as well as you could expect but the forum, and the audience and the questions asked all favored Obama by a large margin. But even with that handicap McCain rose above and delivered a very solid performance.


Obama was his usual self, quick thinking, nimble, and definitely not easily trapped by what were a veritable minefield of questions. The conventional wisdom seems to be that McCain got the better of Obama, and he did, but let's not forget what Hillary would have looked like in this forum: dreadful. Only Obama, among all Democrats, could have pulled this off as well as he did, and most Democrats should watch this and simply be reassured that they picked the best candidate for battles like this.


Obama was peppered with questions about abortion, stem cells, his faith in God, faith-based initiatives, all of which he answered with, if not clarity, but definitely a sense of authenticity. The audience seemed to appreciate, and want to appreciate what Obama was trying to do, which was reach out to them.But the loaded and tripwire questions for Obama, were softballs for McCain, and almost all of which he hit out of the park. Even a question likely designed to be "tough": Name a time you've gone against party loyalty, seemed tailor made for McCain, although Obama did as well as possible.


But what I came away with, were the stories. McCain simply had better stories, and more of them, from the question on adoption leading to the story of his adopted daughter from Bangladesh, to the story of the Christian guard in Vietnam, McCain seemed to have an endless supply of appropriate and fascinating anecdotes. To the point I think we should nickname him Higgins.


He also espoused all the "right" positions on issues that conservatives and evangelicals usually care about, although it was a bit jarring to hear him say he didn't want to tax rich people, when in 2000 he was calling the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" unnecessary and unfair. So he's still moving to the right, even after securing the nomination.


Longtime readers of the Political Machine know that I don't care for McCain one single bit, and my ideal election result would be one where they both lose, and I think he is likely pandering, but my bottom-line analysis here is that he did much better than expected, and likely went a long way toward securing the support he needs from the Republican base.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John McCain, 2008 President, Media

I'm aware that the left side of the blogosphere and punditocracy is extremely partisan, but the brazenness of this still shocks me sometimes. This weekend is a good case in point. What do you call it when you cast aspersions on the Vietnam experience of a presidential candidate? Oh yes, swiftboating.


Only Andrew Sullivan did not have any first hand testimony when he went up against McCain's cross in the sand testimony, only a gut instinct that it smelled fishy. And that was enough for the left blogosphere (and check the links at memeorandum) to jump all over the story claiming, in essence, that only once this century could Christian captives and captors communicate the most common symbol of their faith using the most common substance in a POW camp.

Maguire and Riehl cover the absurdities well, and where oh where is Barack Obama, who has spent the entire campaign complaining about unfair and malicious attacks on his background now that his proxies are doing the same to John McCain. And much less than swiftboating no less.


So let's be clear, it's not that the left decries the swiftboat tactics, it's when they're used against Democratic candidates. Against Republicans, we don't even need testimony and an organized book.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John McCain, Featured Stories, Environment, 2008 President, Energy

It's not a flip yet, but it does show McCain could bring even more pressure on the Democrats over domestic energy issues:

In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position--to one that endorses drilling in ANWR. "I continue to examine it," he said. So does his staff. McCain's campaign has been quietly studying the ANWR issue and discussing the potential consequences--good and bad--of a policy change.

But in our conversation on August 13, McCain added a new wrinkle. When I asked him if he had consulted Palin about ANWR, he said that he had not yet done so. He added, "I probably should," he said. "I will."

So I called Palin to ask what McCain can expect to hear. The answer is that Palin, who has been mentioned as a possible McCain running mate but has not been vetted, will make a straightforward case for drilling in ANWR. She says McCain's willingness to take another look at ANWR is "very encouraging."

Like Obama's recent flips on drilling, this flip would be toward a position that is much more popular with the public. But unlike the Dem side, McCain's move will make him more popular with his party, while Obama's flips dismay his own side.

Except of course for those who believe it was done for crass political reasons, that Obama is not serious about the current position. In other words, those guys think Obama is pandering, and they support him pandering because they think the true position is a political loser. Not exactly the strongest position for a politician to be in!

But McCain's willingness to move on ANWR is heartening for two reasons, one because drilling in ANWR is the right thing to do, it will create American jobs, help our trade deficit (oh and get us some more oil as well). And it won't hurt the environment, or even despoil scenic vistas, as the tundra drilling proposed is not scenic and no one goes there anyway. The biggest worry of the park rangers is that the Caribou might get too tame!

The second reason is that from the first I have had McCain pegged as one stubborn old man. Once he took a position however wrong, you could not make him see the light of day. That can be a good thing of course, but more often than not, McCain has dug in on positions that are diametrically opposed to what most Republicans want, immigration being a prominent example, but ANWR is another one. Maybe he can change his mind after all, although an impending election certainly appears to help.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Barack Obama, Ads, John McCain, 2008 President

A couple of months ago, DHL announced it would be moving it's air freight business to UPS and mostly shuttering it's Wilmington facility. And since Wilmington is in Ohio, Ohio is a battleground state, and this is an election year, this has become a political football.

Here's Obama's attack:

And McCain's response:

Unfortunately the response message discipline has run amok at McCain HQ. And in this case the message (Obama is a tax raiser) has overridden any direct response that John McCain should have made to Obama's charges over DHL.

FactCheck.org does a much better job. And if McCain actually wants to, you know, kinda win this thing? He might want to run some response ads that actually respond.

Hat tip to RCP blog.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John McCain, Breaking News, 2008 President, Fundraising

From NRO's The Corner:

Campaign manager Rick Davis just told reporters that McCain raised $27 million in July and had $21.4 million in cash on hand at the end of the month.

MORE: Davis says the RNC raised $26 million in July and has $75 million in cash on hand.

STILL MORE: As far as the campaign's money is concerned, Davis stresses that since McCain is accepting federal funds, he will have to spend all his primary-season money by the time he gets the money next month. "We are definitely on a decline curve where we will be spending more than we are raising now," Davis said.

So that's $21 Million that McCain needs to spend before the convention, plus whatever he brings in between now and then. I see an advertising blitz in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado and Virginia in the near future.

McCain also beat Obama to the numbers earlier. Obama, of course, raised $52M in June, but the bottom line is that McCain has plenty of money to run a competitive campaign.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President

According to him, and this is Karl Rove, so I'd pay attention, we should be watching Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Colorado.

Other states will see serious competition, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, Missouri and Wisconsin. But Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Ohio are likely to be the center of the action. To win, Mr. Obama needs to pick up 18 electoral votes more than John Kerry received, meaning Mr. Obama must carry Colorado or Virginia and add another small state to his column. If Mr. McCain carries Michigan as well as Ohio, it would make Mr. Obama's Electoral College math very difficult. And if Mr. McCain can limit GOP losses to one or two small states from those won by the GOP in 2004, he'll be America's 44th president.

He notes that in Ohio, among the keys will be suburban Cincinnati... hey, that's where I'm at! Hello ringside seat (again) along with the white blue collar areas in the northeast and southeast.

You would think that Florida would get more attention, but Karl Rove and recent polls show it as safely McCain and this column reflects the consensus that Florida will likely stay red. We'll watch how many times Obama goes there.

But the big takeaway here with these four is that McCain is defending three and Obama is defending one. It's Obama's race to lose, but it definitely can be lost, as Rove shows here.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John McCain, Iraq, 2008 President, Foreign Policy

If you're a McCain supporter, or the enemy of your enemy is John McCain, I present to you your cringeworthy moment of the day:

Tip of the hat to ThinkProgress. Of course, the lefties have jumped all over this. Perhaps what McCain meant to say was that nations don't invade other nations, unless in response to an invasion of a third country and then after thirteen years of broken promises, a nation may invade another nation under the auspices of several standing UN resolutions.

But that probably would have taken too long to say.

The president's statement today was clearer and attempted to hit on the Russians desire to be seen as a first rate civilized world power. Which is a good thing to hit. On balance McCain has clearly picked a side, and it's the side that any American older than thirty years is conditioned to take (against Russia) and so politically I would say that McCain is going to get the better of this. And that's not even taking into account that McCain is probably on the right side substance-wise. Obama's heading there too, but too slowly to take any real leadership or get any points.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: 2008 President, Humor

(Warning: this article is 99% tongue-in-cheek)


Now after Obama and the Democrats have accused John McCain of being in the pocket of Big Oil, it turns out that Obama has his own special interest ties that he'd rather not be known. From Wired:

On June 16, 2008, John Zimmerman, chief financial officer of Tomkins, gave nearly $7,000 in campaign contributions to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Lo and behold, nary two months later Obama's in Springfield, Missouri, suggesting drivers inflate their tires to save gas (and, by the way, curb CO2 emissions). Coincidence? We think not. Does it come as any surprise that Tomkins owns the Syracuse Gauge Company, which bills itself as manufacturing the "largest selection and variety of tools in the United States for filling tires [and] checking tire pressure"?

Of course the mainstream media ignored this development, leaving it to the blogosphere to bring the big money and big pressure of the PSI lobby to light.

Clearly, Mr. Zimmerman's contributions influenced the Obama campaign to encourage Americans to purchase tire gauges, though most of the lowly devices have already been snapped up by the McCain campaign. Perhaps the most-shocking part of Inflategate is the politicization of a suggestion so simple as following the instructions found in your car's owners manual. It's also something of a tempest in a teapot, seeing how all new cars must have tire-pressure monitors.

At least with John McCain and the oil industry, the contributions came after the policy announcement. This kind of brazen quid pro quo should not come without a deflation at the electoral booth. Ha! The jokes write themselves.

Seriously, kudo's to Mr. Zimmerman to get some good cheap PR out of this election.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Foreign Policy

Well, it's one way of looking at it:

Right, because when President Bush, John McCain, and Georgia itself asked for a ceasefire, Russia didn't pay no nevermind. But when Obama says ceasefire, Russia stops right in it's tracks! Oh brother.

Heard this on Rush today and I have to agree with his sentiment. Tim Kaine really, really wants to be the VP nominee. Governor Kaine probably thinks he's helping and doesn't know he's feeding the Obama/arrogance meme.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, 2008 President, Scandal

Did the Mainstream media's lack of followup in the Edwards/Hunter affair last November keep Edwards in the race and ended up kicking Hillary out? It was around then that the first Edwards rumors started kicking around. The mainstream media angle is my addition, but it's the logical conclusion to this thinking here exhibited by Howard Wolfson:

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Interesting. Also interesting that the calculation then by Hillary would have been to keep Edwards in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote. As it turned out, she needed him out because he was splitting the anti-Obama vote.

That's... ironic.

Tip to Bearing Drift Ohio

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, 2008 President, Scandal

Did the Mainstream media's lack of followup in the Edwards/Hunter affair last November keep Edwards in the race and ended up kicking Hillary out? It was around then that the first Edwards rumors started kicking around. The mainstream media angle is my addition, but it's the logical conclusion to this thinking here exhibited by Howard Wolfson:

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Interesting. Also interesting that the calculation then by Hillary would have been to keep Edwards in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote. As it turned out, she needed him out because he was splitting the anti-Obama vote.

That's... ironic.

Tip to Bearing Drift Ohio

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 President, Foreign Policy

How the candidates responded to the first 3AM call...

John McCain:

"[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences of Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave. The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.

"I repeat, the government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The United States should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council and to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to asses Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia."

Well it's pretty easy to figure out where McCain stands on this issue.

Barack Obama:

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

Are you kidding me? Barack and his advisors should have been looking at this as a great opportunity to show that Obama can handle foreign policy issues of the first order. Instead they put out a statement that, in essence, says the same thing McCain did, only in a much less direct and more mealy-mouthed way.
Jim Geraghty reports that, as you would expect, the Russians are not happy with John McCain and attacked him for having a Georgian lobbyist, and then an Obama staffer couldn't resist.

From the NYT:

"John McCain's top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia, and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, who added that the "appearance of a conflict of interest" was a consequence of McCain's close ties to lobbyists.

Mr. Salter, of the McCain campaign, dismissed the criticism. "In the middle of an international crisis, in which people are getting killed," he said, "the best the Obama campaign can come up with is to cast aspersions on a McCain staffer."

Mr. Salter acknowledged that Mr. Scheunemann had lobbied for Georgia, but said that Mr. McCain "has been involved in the efforts of former Soviet Republics to embrace democracy and free market values since the end of the Cold War."

So there you have it. On the first foreign policy quiz. McCain tells an aggressor to stand down, and tells the UN and NATO to stand up. Obama's team puts out a fuzzier statement and plays politics.

McCain: A

Obama: C-

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Surprise!  Tip to Hell in a Handbasket:

Your results:
You are Zoe Washburne (Second-in-command)

Zoe Washburne (Second-in-command) 70% Wash (Ship Pilot) 70% Malcolm Reynolds (Captain) 65% Kaylee Frye (Ship Mechanic) 20% Derrial Book (Shepherd) 20% Alliance 10% Inara Serra (Companion) 0% Jayne Cobb (Mercenary) 0% Dr. Simon Tam (Ship Medic) 0% River (Stowaway) 0% A Reaver (Cannibal) 0%

Dependable and trustworthy. You love your significant other and you are a tough cookie when in a conflict.

Click here to take the “Which Serenity character am I?” quiz…

It actually makes sense if you knew my personality.

Filed under: John Edwards, Breaking News, Scandal

This is worse than I thought. Elizabeth Edwards has a statement:

Our family has been through a lot. Some caused by nature, some caused by human weakness, and some most recently caused by the desire for sensationalism and profit without any regard for the human consequences. None of these has been easy. But we have stood with one another through them all. Although John believes he should stand alone and take the consequences of his action now, when the door closes behind him, he has his family waiting for him.

John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private. The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

So the Edwards, both John and Elizabeth, conveniently decided to keep the matter secret and not allow it to come out for a full vetting, for the entire time he was running for President. And all the times that John Edwards explicitly denied the rumors, Elizabeth knew he was lying, and did nothing.


My respect for her just went down a great deal. She may decide that it's a private matter, but when your husband is running for president, it most surely is not. Well maybe now it is, since he's no longer in the picture, but even that stance is dubious, as he was known to be seeking a high office within a potential Obama administration. This could have been very damaging to their own party and cost them the election entirely.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: John Edwards, 2008 President, Scandal

As you would expect, the tawdry Edwards saga is the top of the news in the political sphere today. For those who have been dismissive about Edwards, the affair is just firm proof of a narcissistic personality. And sure it's fun to gloat and to bring up the famous youtubes of him primping himself while looking into a ladies compact.


But what really outrages me here is thinking about Edwards supporters. Out there somewhere are some folks who weren't sure if they had enough money to pay the rent next month, but they gave $100 to the Edwards campaign because they believed in him. And Edwards was a tireless campaigner who was good on the stump and good at convincing people he was their guy. And all the time he knew, and according to him Elizabeth knew, that he was sitting on a ticking time bomb that would derail his candidacy forever. Assuming he locked up the nomination, just where would the Democrats be right now?


And yet there he was trying to heedlessly win the nomination and guide his own party to a crash. Somehow vain doesn't quite capture the essence of John Edwards. Did he really think that the affair wouldn't surface? Who did he think he was, Bill Clinton?


Ah yes, Bill Clinton, the gift that keeps giving to the Democratic party, providing hope and inspiration to vain, egomaniac personalities who think that they too can cheat on their wife and be president, even if the National Enquirer gets hold of the story. Note to politicians: Most of you are not Bill Clinton, and even if you are, you couldn't do what he did unless you had a Hillary Clinton at your side.


And I really can't see Elizabeth Edwards doing a full Tammy Wynette. No let's close the book on John Edwards with this saying: If you can't be a great example, be a terrible warning.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Barack Obama, Ads, 2008 President

And I wonder why they call August the "silly season". Remember this ad?

According to the WSJ:

The ad has provoked a growing debate on the Internet over whether it is playing with apocalyptic themes. Those ideas are chiefly shared by fundamentalist Protestants and some other evangelical Christians. Among their expectations: the ascension of a false prophet, a one-world government and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Critiques of the ad started surfacing earlier this week when Eric Sapp, a Democratic operative, circulated the first of two memos pointing out images that he believed linked Sen. Obama to the antichrist.

"Short of 666, they used every single symbol of the antichrist in this ad," said Mr. Sapp, who advises Democrats on reaching out to faith communities. "There are way too many things to just be coincidence."

McCain campaign staffers have taken to calling Sen. Obama "The One" in reference to what they see as his self-aggrandizing speaking style.

But as the article also quoted Tim Lahaye, who said that Obama definitely could not be the Antichrist, because the Antichrist is not American. Who's Tim Lahaye? Well, he co-wrote the "Left Behind" series, so he should know!

Your attention please! Obama is not the Antichrist, although some of his staffers are extremely whiny and sensitive.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

New widget up top in a very prominent location.  I like it.  If the GOP can stall in the House, or filibuster in the Senate, or with a veto by Bush, offshore drilling opens up automatically on September 30th.   w00!

And to explain my title, it’s one thing to say that we shouldn’t drill because the oil is a negligible amount, but the money and jobs generated, plus the offset to our trade deficit is another thing entirely.  On that basis alone, we should be drilling.

But of course those jobs would go to poor grunts who make drilling equipment and drive trucks and stuff, so maybe the Democrats are once again showing lack of concern for the working man (and his fuel and heating bills).

Alternatively, we could just keep our tires properly inflated!

Filed under: John Edwards, 2008 President, Scandal, Investigations

From UK's Daily Mail, this story is breaking open:

Until the photograph emerged Mr Edwards, who was John Kerry's running mate in the 2004 presidential election, had managed to avoid questions about the affair. But by yesterday afternoon newspapers, television stations and websites across America were running the story - infuriating Democratic leaders who want the focus to remain on Mr Obama, the 47-year-old Illinois senator who will square off against Republican John McCain in the November 4 election.

...

'If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial. It's very damaging,' said Gary Pearce, who ran Mr Edwards 1998 senate campaign.

'He's got to stand up and say, 'This is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.' It's not enough to say it's tabloid trash.'

Well they could have run with the story a couple weeks earlier and that would have steered clear of the Denver convention. Remember it's the stonewalling that hurts. If it's true, it's bad, and Democrats must have to thank their lucky stars that Edwards went nowhere in the primaries. Imagine if he were the nominee... yikes.

The sympathetic figure here is of course Elizabeth Edwards, who has been struggling with cancer and has two children with Edwards. She is also a well liked figure among the Democratic base. No one really wanted this story to be true, but he is a major figure and this is news, by any objective measure. See Emily Bazelon, a liberal journalist at Slate, for reference.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments