The phrase so close, yet so far away was never more true for me than yesterday. A friend asked on Thursday night if I was interested in going to Cedarburg Friday, That was just the nudge I needed. I said, yes!

Neither of us had ever gone to one of these campaign stops before, so we were greenhorns. We did manage to get there by 8am, but we could see by the crowd, that was not nearly early enough.

After waiting for a long time to get through security, something I should have anticipated, we finally were allowed through. Unfortunately, we were on the north side of the podium--the wrong side of town. We did have an excellent view of the backside of the press bleachers though! (Photo courtesy of another attendee.)

From JSOnline: Police said there were at least 12,500 who were admitted to the secure area and another 5,000 who did not fit.

The rumor was that when this Cedarburg stop was originally set up, they were expecting a crowd of 2,000. I think there is little doubt about what Palin and the convention has done for the ticket. (I think many people saw a new side to John McCain through his convention speech.)

Whitney Clapper sang the National Anthem and did an outstanding job. Dr. Ferry from Concorida University provided the invocation--not just some wimpy little generic prayer, this was a meaty prayer. (I should have taken notes but my eyes were closed.)

We could hear the speakers fine; we just could not see a thing. While Congressman Sensenbrenner was speaking, the guards permitted a crowd of attendees to flood the street, allowing them to get much closer to the bleachers, while we were kept back on the sidewalks. Many started booing near me. Poor Sensenbrenner! The boos quickly died down when the sidewalk crowd realized the street group could see no better.

We decided that we might as well leave our spot to see if we could get a better glimpse on the south side of the crowd. The guard informed us we would have to go through security on the other end of main street if we left, but we really did not care. It was pretty worthless where we were.

It was an interesting walk down the alley to the east of the main street.We could see the news vans,.sign distribution area (picked up a few), campaign "stuff" vendors, and of course...protesters.

 
I purchased a fabulous pin, featuring Lincoln (birth of the Republican party), Reagan, and now McCain.

We then headed to Tomasos Pizza where we could watch the coverage on the TV screen. There we met William, who told us he was right up front! He showed us some of his pictures on his camera and promised to email. (Many on the slideshow are courtesy of Bill and another friend.)
                                                                                                       Other people on the street had various signs, McCain face cut-outs, and some had elephant shaped auction paddle style signs. The paddles we learned were courtesy of John Murphy (left) of Mequon's BetterBidders auction paddle company. We met up with him later and he told us a similar pair, from the 2004 election, now resides in the Smithsonian! 

The crowd was very up-beat, despite 1,000s being turned away. People were friendly and ready to share or trade their McCain/Palin goodies. Even though we were not able to see the candidates for ourself, it still was a fun experience. The weather was great and the mood even better.

No doubt about it, the Republicans are energized!

 

Bits and pieces

A funny tid-bit:

"After speaking, McCain and Palin ducked into The Chocolate Factory to greet people. "I've got to get the moose tracks, please," said Palin at the counter. "Moose tracks, you know, near and dear to my heart. I can't go wrong with it." She was given a waffle cone with a giant scoop. McCain ordered sorbet; Cindy McCain ordered a brownie.

Interesting note: When an important person is in town, such as the president of the United States or presidential candidate, don't count on going to Froedert hospital's emergency room without calling first. Friday they diverted patients to other hospitals while the VIP were in town. (Learned this by experience.)

What to, and not to bring: My advice is that it is best to think of these events in terms of airport security. While waiting in line to pass through security, we heard you needed ID (didn't.) Also heard umbrellas were a no-no, so were American flags if the stick was too long. I think beverages were out too. Weapons of course are verboten and I think a scissors, letter opener, pocket knife, or anything else the guard might think could be used to hurt someone. The guard next to us was ripping the flags off the sticks and keeping the sticks, but my guard let me take mine in. My very short collapsible umbrella was OK (they did feel it though.)

Favorite homemade sign: This lady told us she came all the way from Tennessee!

 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: Lots more pictures on my McCain Slideshow 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

My husband and I were glued to the TV set last night, watching the Republican convention. The speeches were outstanding--Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani did great. 

Then it was Sarah Palin's turn. Would she be as composed and confident as she was on Friday? Would all the vicious, negative media attention throw her?

Nope.

Not even a malfunctioning teleprompter * could keep her from delivering her message. 

Halfway through Sarah Palin's speech tonight at the RNC, people following the speech noticed she was deviating from the prepared text.

According to sources close to the McCain campaign, the teleprompter continued scrolling during applause breaks. As a result, half way through the speech, the speech had scrolled significantly from where Governor Palin was in the speech. The malfunction also occurred during Rudy Giuliani's speech, explaining his significant deviations from his speech.

I don't recall her uttering even one a, er, or um. (My speech professor from UWM would have heartily approved her delivery. He was a stickler and would deduct one grade level for each um or filler word uttered during our presentations.)

Contrast her flawless performance with Obama's when his teleprompter fizzled, 

[Obama] was left stuttering before a crowd unable to advance his speech until the problem was resolved.

In addition to a well delivered speech, Sarah Palin did what few women can do: criticize without being perceived as being witchy. She skillfully used humor when needed to make her points.  Ronald Reagan was good at this too.

Any wonder the left is said to be "Sarah-fied" today?

 

PS Yes, she was wearing lipstick! 

* Some controversy exists over the word, significant. The Politico says it was only slightly.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

If the liberal media wants to know why conservatives have pretty much given up reading their papers and watching their broadcasts, this may give them some insights. From Investor's Business Daily: (My emphasis throughout)

"Iraq War: We interrupt coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy to announce that the U.S. has turned over control of Iraq's wild, wild west to Baghdad. Memo to Barack Obama: Soon you will have nothing left to surrender.

On Monday, while Democrats waited to see if Hurricane Gustav would be another Katrina and the GOP juggled its convention schedule, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar province to the Iraqi Army and police. [The Iraqis have actually been in control since April.]

Maybe you missed it. The New York Times Web page had three stories on Bristol Palin. The Washington Post's online magazine, Slate, is running a "Name Bristol Palin's Baby" contest. And Us Weekly has "Babies, Lies and Scandal" on its cover.

Victory in Iraq can't compete in an environment where Bristol's boyfriend is more thoroughly investigated than Obama's lifelong association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

The media prefer to ignore how wrong Obama was on the major foreign policy issue of the Bush years. He opposed the war and the surge. He supported cutting off funding. He sponsored a bill to have U.S. troops withdraw in defeat by March of this year, their sacrifice in vain. His policies would have led to a humanitarian and strategic disaster.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he [Obama] said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse." When confronted by ABC News with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "No."

Not only was Obama wrong about Iraq, but he selected a running mate who also was wrong. Remember Joe Biden's Slice and Dice solution to turn a sovereign Iraq into a sectarian sectioned country? 

I am thrilled that Iraq has made this progress, but I don't think it was due just to the increase in troops. IBD touches on this:

The extra troops allowed a take-and-hold strategy that convinced Iraqis that America wouldn't cut and run. It would later be called the "Anbar Awakening."

Sure, the extra troops helped reverse the dire situation in Iraq, 

In 2006, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and said it controlled both Anbar and Diyala. In January 2007, CNN's Michael Ware described Ramadi, a city of 500,000 and Anbar's capital, as "the true al-Qaida national headquarters."

Evidently Sarah Palin was warned about the potential for vicious attacks from McCain's opponents. She is no shrinking violet though. William Kristol posted this:

"A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc." Here is what she had to say,

You have got to say she has chutzpah!

I am eagerly anticipating her speech tonight. Will we see the same confidence we saw in her on Friday?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

Have you noticed that this summer was cooler than usual? That fact, coupled with our recent cold and snowy winter, takes the subject of Global Warming off the front burner.

The last time the temperature didn't hit 90 degrees in Milwaukee during a summer* was in 2000, the weather service said. Before that, it was 1915.

But without even knowing what the daily highs were, could you tell our days and nights were cooler when compared to other summers? I could. Thanks to lower evening temperatures, we were able to avoid turning on our electricity guzzling air conditioner this summer.

As a gardener, I know this summer has been cooler. Tomatoes, which require warm evening temperatures, are ripening slowly. This spring my peach trees let me know we had a colder than usual winter by producing only 2 blossoms. Essentially all of the flowering buds were frozen out. I haven't had a bumper crop in years.

We may have had a stretch of warmer than usual temperatures in recent years. These fueled the Global Warming argument. Who could forget the summer of 1995? (We were remodeling. The whole east side of our house was open to the elements and mosquitoes. Couldn't run the air.) Remember that summer? We had a number of 100+ days! It was awful.

But the warming trend seems to have turned around, and I think it is taking the wind out of the Global Warming alarmists' sails.  

Did you notice how the Global Warming/Climate Change issue was no longer in the limelight at the Democrat convention? There was lots of talk about energy independence and getting off of foreign oil from the Democrats, but not much on reducing carbon footprints, or Global Warming specifically, that I heard.

Barack Obama did not mention Global Warming or even Climate Change in his speech. The closest Obama came to it was, (my emphasis)

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East...

...As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power**... ...And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

Al Gore referred to it as climate crisis in his convention speech. But Gore was not on the prime time coverage I viewed. He is still gung-ho on reducing dependence on big oil and coal, but even Gore did not refer to the term Global Warming--except in reference to McCain backing away from "mandatory caps on global warming pollution" legislation.

The Republicans are off to a slow start with their convention due to hurricane Gustav. Last night Joe Lieberman did mention global warming briefly:

If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming.

I will be listening tonight and tomorrow to the speeches--especially for specific mention or even a hint of Global Warming or Climate Change. I think the whole issue has cooled off in light of the large temperature drop this year and the majority of Americans wanting us to drill domestically. McCain's choosing Sarah Palin from an oil producing state leads me to believe we won't be hearing much about it.

 

*The article stated that for record keeping purposes, they count summer as being June, July, and August instead of the June 22 - Sept. 22 definition of summer. 

**Pretty ironic. The Democrats have been blocking these energy sources in Congress, but now that the American public is demanding domestic drilling, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear is OK?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Last night, Bill O'Reilly was hot under the collar about MSNBC's coverage of McCain's Sarah Palin VP pick. Here is the YouTube clip.

MSNBC really crossed the line by adding the caption, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" under their breaking news bulletin of the event. I also agree with O'Reilly that Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams bear some responsibility here too. By appearing on MSNBC, they lend credence to this type of snide reporting.

Any wonder MSNBC isn't watched by conservatives?

I used to get all my news from NBC; I've watched ever since the Dave Garaway years! The Today Show used to be the first thing I turned on in the morning and I prepared dinner with Tom Brokaw. But over the years, NBC became so biased (and fluffy), I couldn't take it anymore.

In Googling this topic, I came across a new acronym for NBC: New Barack Channel 

By the way, I think it's odd that MSNBC would even raise the house question since Sarah Palin seems so very mainstream American and working class. There doesn't appear to be an elite bone in her body--she loves moose stew and probably doesn't even know what arugula lettuce is! 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

 

"She's a female Teddy Roosevelt" a caller told Jay Weber today, as I was listening for the latest VP news. That sums it up well.

Sarah Palin seems a perfect complement to McCain: Young, energetic, a governor, pro-marriage, passionately pro-life. She is a life long member of the NRA, hunts and ice fishes.

McCain and Palin have the potential to get our budget under control and end waste. Palin's nickname was the barracuda in high school.

I heard she cleaned house in Alaska, leaving a trail of bodies in her wake. (Many of them good ole boy republicans!)  It sounds like she won't tolerate corruption or waste regardless of whose party it comes from. That is what we need.

I think Ronald Reagan would be pleased. I know I am breathing a sigh of relief. I will feel even better when I hear John McCain say it himself. (I am a bit of a Doubting Thomas at times.)

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

(See updates at bottom of post)

The word is, John McCain will declare his running mate tomorrow. I have come to terms with voting for McCain. To quote a colorful little saying of my father's, "He's a little better than the average...but the average ain't so good these days." The more I find out about Obama, the better McCain looks.

I think as long as he doesn't pick a real loser of a running mate, most conservatives like me will take a deep breath and vote for McCain on election day. The fact that a number of pro-choice candidates have been hinted at however, such as Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman, to me destroys all the positive ground McCain gained since he became the Republican's candidate.

If McCain picks Lieberman or any other pro-choice running mate, I guess I will need an oxygen tank to keep me going on Election Day!

There is one V.P. possibility that excites me: Alaska's governor Sarah Palin. She is young, energetic, pro life, pro gun, pro small business, very pro oil...what's not to like? I doubt Democrats will bring up her lack of foreign policy experience because that would just point to Obama's lack of experience too. She's a mother of 5, her oldest son enlisted in the Army; her youngest was born with Down's Syndrome. So unlike Romney, who has changed his position, she truly believes in the sanctity of life and has demonstrated that by her actions. (Just so you know, I would be just as excited by her if she were male.)

Mitt Romney would be OK with me too. His speech on faith and his concession speech last spring were outstanding. He is pro-life enough for me and I know he would defend our freedom of religion, even though I don't share his faith. Many people do not see Romney in a favorable light however.

Tim Pawlenty's name has been out for a while. He would be good. He is young, pro life, and fairly conservative, but he is hook, line, and sinker an ethanol promoter. (What can you expect in Minnesota?) He comes from humble roots, so that would be a nice contrast. Since Pawlenty was for McCain all along, there would not be the 180 degree flip flops on McCain being a good president as Biden has had to do with Obama.

Another name tossed out there is Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator from Texas. She does not excite me, but at least she isn't a Lieberman or Ridge.

Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindall would be great too, but they are just a little on the young side for most people. (Next time?) 

Any of the above would be better than a pro-choice pick.

What I don't understand is why McCain would even flirt with the idea of a pro-choice running mate? It is pretty obvious that the pro-life issue is important. To many voters it is the #1 criteria.

Eyebrows are still rising over Obama's vote on the Infant Protection Bill. Others agree that a Pro Choice Veep Equals Political Suicide, (My emphasis)

I hate to rain on John McCain's parade right after he trounced Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church forum, for which I heartily applaud him, but McCain's trial balloon consideration of a pro-choice running mate demands a response.

The prospect of an Obama presidency is so horrifying that many conservatives have temporarily put aside their misgivings about McCain to focus on defeating Obama.

They hold their noses on McCain's immigration record, his campaign finance reform zealotry and his newfound acquiescence to the propaganda narrative of environmental extremists. But they are profoundly appreciative of his tougher stance against tax increases and mindful of his undeniable superiority over Obama on foreign policy and national defense. Recent world events, including Russia's naked aggression against Georgia, magnify this already-glaring contrast.

But while national defense necessarily occupies the front burner, McCain would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives, the Republicans' most reliable voting bloc over the past three decades.

The pro life issue still has traction. Why give it away?

Because of McCain's age, the running mate becomes an even more important issue. Plus, wouldn't it be great to have a strong V.P. candidate that could step up when McCain fulfilled his term/s? 

In the meantime, I'm holding my breath and thinking, don't make a colossal blunder, McCain! 

UPDATE: After Barack Obama's speech tonight, the word on Fox News was that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty would be meeting with McCain in Ohio tomorrow. Other sources had a longer list of VP possibilities. Ugh, I hate waiting.

Friday morning UPDATE: Mitt Romney will be in Ohio, Tim Pawlenty is not the pick and is not coming to Ohio, Mike Huckabee said he was not vetted (phew), but there is mention of a private charter flight to Ohio from ALASKA! (Jay Weber) Drudge has a campaign button mock up with McCain Palin on it big as life. 

2nd Friday update: Fox News says it is not Mitt Romney. 

3rd Friday update: My hopes are dashed. Rumors of Palin being in Ohio are said to not be true. ABC says she is in Alaska and set to visit their state fair today. I suppose she could still be the pick? They could be wrong? I hope? There are other rumors that Palin has been spotted in Ohio--that a woman and 2 teens got off that Alaskan charter flight last night. The announcement will come at 11am today--at least I can exhale then.  

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Last week Michelle Obama did it again. She said something that revealed who she is and how out of touch she is with the average American's economic circumstances.

The Washington Times reported that each campaign needed to rein in their surrogates:

The same day a John McCain surrogate dismissed economic woes from a nation of "whiners," Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

I would not classify Michelle Obama in the same "surrogate" category as McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm, however. McCain can dump Gramm, but Michelle Obama is part of the package. She will be First Lady if Obama is elected. Whenever she says something controversial, an image of her serving tea to an important dignitary while making "small talk" pops into my mind.

Mrs. Obama does not come across as a happy camper. I think the first time I heard her interviewed was last February when the Obamas were in town before our primary. She talked about how women struggled just to get through each day, and she included herself in that group. I was surprised by her remarks because they sounded like those of an unhappy wife.

Michelle mentioned the usual complaints: husbands go off to work and leave all the responsibility of home and children to the wife. She spoke about how she is the one who must take the kids to the doctor or stay home if they are ill, etc. At the time I thought she was not painting her husband in a very good light. To hear her talk, you would think they were impoverished and had no options to hire a baby sitter, helper, or housekeeper.

As the campaign continued, I found out the Obamas lived quite comfortably. Comfortable enough to think nothing of $600.  

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she [Michelle] said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

A reader's response to the Washington Times article summed it up well,

Someone who suggests spending the $600 rebate on earrings is not living the same way the rest of America lives.

We put our stimulus check in the bank, saving it to pay for our property taxes due in December. It required belt tightening now, but I am grateful we were able to do that. (Still wish we did not go down the stimulus road though.) 

As time has gone on and Michelle's list of controversial remarks has grown, more of her personality has been revealed. She just may be McCain's best campaigner. 

 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

It is becoming more difficult to ignore the threat of Iran and its long-range (see UPDATE at bottom) missile program. Yesterday they fired 9 missiles  and I heard 4* more overnight. I found the reaction of the candidates to this eyeopening.

Launch Brings Different Reactions: 

Tehran's testing of long-range missiles Wednesday drew  markedly different responses from U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as Iran develops into a defining issue for the campaign.

Sen. Obama cited the test as further evidence of why the U.S. must engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran, while his Republican opponent called for more forceful responses, such as the development of a missile-defense system to protect U.S. allies.

"History shows us that when nations are embarked on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region...other actions besides diplomacy have to be contemplated and taken," Sen. McCain ... 

From US News, Iran Tests Missiles Able To Reach Israel:

McCain Warns Against "Second Holocaust" The CBS Evening News interviewed Sen. John McCain, "The Iranians are testing these missiles not because of action on the part of the Israelis, in my view. This is part of a calculated plan, developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."

McCain told NBC Nightly News, "Hopefully, this event, it will serve as a catalyst that will finally gel all of the different factors that have been out there that will allow us then to act with our friends and allies in a most effective fashion and modify Iranian behavior, but we cannot allow a second Holocaust."

Obama Calls For "Direct Negotiations" ABC World News reported Sen. Barack Obama said in reaction to the missile tests, "The United States has to gather up others in the region, as well as internationally, to apply pressure on Iran. But it's very difficult for us to do so when we haven't shown a willingness to engage in the sort of direct negotiations with Iran that would give them carrots and sticks for a change in behavior." The CBS Evening News reported Obama "said what is needed is direct diplomacy and the threat of tougher sanctions to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Obama wants to talk. Talk to a nation that says the Holocaust never happened and that has set their sites on eliminating Israel.

Neville Chamberlain thought he could talk the madman Hitler out of his designs to rule all of Europe and the United States too. We know how that worked out for Neville.

 

*Was it 3 or 4? Seeing is not believing. Check out Michelle Malkin's Fauxtography-fest 2008! and see for yourself. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

UPDATE: Test exhibits no long-range rocket 'Same old Boring Shahab 3'. Not only were the pictures not what they seemed, but the Iranians' story too! Be sure to read all of the linked article. Here are some highlights:

Iran's missile test last week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, said a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials said the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put Iran in striking distance of much of the Middle East, including Israel - as close as 650 miles from Iran - as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

... Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length-to-width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea's Nodong-1, according to the blog.

..."Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with [last] week's tests," said David Wright, co-director of the Union's Global Security Program.

..."We don't believe this exercise to have been an illusion," he [Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell] said Friday. Still, he added, "They were not testing new technologies or capabilities, but rather firing off old equipment in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors and escalate tension in the region. That is not the way to win the trust and confidence of the international community."

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links:  

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

Yesterday I heard someone say that Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls by 33% by mid-July. I checked it out and sure enough, it was true. His lead narrowed to just 2% by election day though.

Seeing as Obama isn't ahead of McCain by leaps and bounds, yet the media acts like he was already elected, I wondered how this election compared to other elections. (Although nothing about this election is typical!)

I found Gallup did a great job of analyzing the past presidential elections in, July Leader Lost in 6 of Last 9 Competitive U.S. Elections:

In 9 of the past 15 U.S. presidential elections, the candidate who was leading in Gallup polling roughly four months before the election ultimately won the popular vote for president. However, narrowing the set of races to the nine that were competitive, the early polling proved prescient in only three of those.

With Barack Obama leading John McCain by no more than six percentage points in Gallup's early July polling, the 2008 race currently fits best into the "competitive" category. Given that assumption, Gallup's election trends from a comparable point in previous presidential election years offer no strong indication of whether Obama or McCain is headed for victory in November.

Kerry was ahead at this time in 2004, and pundits said it was the end of the Republicans. Election Day told another story. Check out the graphs and charts for past elections on the Gallup site.

With Iran testing 9 missiles yesterday and more overnight and gas prices rising (he says prices just went up too quickly), I cannot think Obama will hold the lead for long.

The more Obama goes off-script (remember the asthma breathalyser, ventilator stumbles), the more he flip-flops (I support the gun ban, dumping church / pastor, getting out of Iraq in 16 mo., funding his campaign, etc.) the more his poll numbers will be affected. The presidential debates should be interesting. 

Fairly Conservative showed "McCain pulling ahead in Missouri" by 2%* 5% yesterday and Obama losing ground to undecided in New Jersey. I would think the Obama erosion will hit other states too.

A lot can happen in 4 months. Iran's current volatility may just be the dose of reality voters need to make a concrete choice come November.....time will tell. 

*Correction 

 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

I just heard on the news today (radio) that John McCain said, "Under my administration,  Osama Bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed." 

I like a little decisiveness as opposed to being wishy-washy, especially when it comes to Osama.

Barack Obama on the other hand...isn't. 

This contrast in approach, along with their differing agenda on US oil and taxes, gives me hope. Keep it up, McCain.

Vive la Difference!

 

 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here's goal is to have 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions this fall.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

President Bush urge[d] Congress to end ban on offshore oil drilling today: (My emphasis)

"Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction," Bush said.

About 60% of Americans support government moves to encourage more oil drilling and refinery construction as a way to combat soaring energy prices -- but the same number also profess to be in favor of conservation, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday. [We should drill and conserve?]

The Presidential candidates are lining up along party lines on opposite sides of the domestic drilling coin: 

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain who announced his position this week after opposing it in the past, increasingly support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

Barack Obama who is running for president, and fellow Democrats, oppose it over environmental concerns and say such action would have little immediate impact on fuel prices.

Despite the President's plea, the Democrats in Congress' Appropriations Committee blocked the measure from coming for a vote today. So the President proposes, Congress disposes. No help from Congress.

Some Democrats did propose that government take over some refineries though!

House Republicans tried to lift the ban before, "Time after time in recent years, drilling advocates have been unable to get the votes in Congress. When Republicans controlled Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives agreed to overturn the ban on offshore drilling, but the measure died in the Senate."  The ban has been in effect since 1981.

Bush admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

With 67%* of American voters supporting more domestic drilling, what are we to do with our Congress that is so unresponsive? How about signing the Drill Here. Drill Now, so we can Pay Less petition?

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Click DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS. to sign the petition and see the latest links to related news articles (updated every day). 

*Latest Rasmussen poll 

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

 

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

 

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

 

The big election buzz this week was Obama became the nominee.

I could not listen to his entire speech, but this part caught my attention:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

I think his statements show how little he understands conservatives and economics.

Most conservatives do not consider McCain as standing with Bush. I would say McCain has been a thorn in Bush's side on many fronts for years. (Most likely, I am still voting for McCain because he is really my only choice, but he is NOT this conservative's dream.)

Secondly, the phrase, "left our children with a mountain of debt." What does he think all of his spending programs will do? He supports National Health, help with college, Global Poverty Act, more biofuel, and Cap and Trade * to name a few.

Every new spending program saddles our children with more debt. So how is it that his new spending programs are OK and those of the past are not? (I am not in favor of many of those either.)

If he had come up with a plan like Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America to reform Social Security, Medicare, and the Tax Structure, and did not have all of these new government programs as his platform, then maybe I could swallow his "mountain of debt" statement.

As it stands, he is the pot calling the kettle black. 

 

*WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- "Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday said that if elected he would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that would sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna