What Is Really Necessary?

Chief already pointed us to the comments that Senator Obama made (last January) to "bankrupt" the coal industry, but I think that these comments are more pertinant - especially to any of us who happen to live in an area where the snow flies and it gets below freezing for 3-5 months a year.

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Ed Morrissey has the audio linked up at Hot Air (where I got the transcript) emphasis is mine.

So Minnesota - are you really willing to pay even more (on top of the increases that the Minnesota Legislature already burdened you with last session) for electricity to heat and light your homes this winter? The "acceptable" alternatives to coal and gas (the Democrats and their green allies will never allow more nuclear even though it is the cleanest and safest AND CHEAPEST available NOW) will not be ready for another 10 years or more. In the meantime, you will have to sacrifice even more so that the government can tell you what to do. Is that really the life you want to lead? If so then by all means vote for the Democrats tomorrow. However, if you would like to be able to afford to heat your home AND feed your family, you may want to think twice about voting for someone who thinks that skyrocketing costs of electricity are "necessary".

Attention PA, OH, IN and VA Voters

This weekend, audio surfaced of an interview that Senator Barack Obama gave the to editorial board of the San Francisco Gate newspaper. In it, Senator Obama had some interesting things to say about a major industry in your states - coal.



The money line is this

"If somebody wanted to build a coal fired plant they can - it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all of the greenhouse gas that is emitted."

Now think about this...suppose your electric company is like most in the country - they get a majority of their power from coal fired plants. Demand for their product is going through the roof - so much so that it is becoming impossible for them to keep up with the demand. They have two choices - they can either build an expanded plant thereby hiring contractors to build the new plant and then hire the employees to staff the plant and thereby boosting the local economy OR they can charge more for the limited supply in order to suppress demand for their product. Their costs would not necessarily go up and all of that increased money would go straight into the utilities bottom line. Oh sure, the investors would be happy - their stock dividends would go up big time. The Board of Directors would be happy - happy enough to most likely give that CEO a big fat raise. In fact the only ones who would be taking the financial "hit" would be the employees (some of whom would get laid off in order to cover the costs of the cap and trade taxes on the existing plants) and the consumers! And the already fragile economy teeters on the brink of total collapse!

The Ohio Coal Association "gets it":

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Oh and for those of you who think that this only effects PA, OH, and VA......take a look at this...

Colorado coal producers purchased over $363 million in services and
supplies during 2007.
Coal severance taxes contribute millions of dollars for local/state governments.

It hits the Intermountain West (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada and Idaho) just as hard.

Change we can believe in....indeed!

A "Post-Partisan" Campaign???

So much for the man that was going to run a "different" kind of campaign. Senator Obama just released a new ad today.

NEW YORK - John McCain is mocked as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate in a television commercial out Friday from Barack Obama as the Democrat begins his sharpest barrage yet on McCain's long Washington career...

The newest ad showcasing their hard line includes unflattering footage of McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.

"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," an announcer says over chirpy elevator music. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail...

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

While it is true that Senator McCain does not send e-mails, it is obvious that Team Obama doesn't know how to use Google or Lexis-Nexis - because if they did they would have found this 2000 article that explains WHY Senator McCain does not use email (HT Ed M).

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard or tying his shoes.

Emphasis mine. If they had looked at all they would have found this NYTimes interview from last July (HT Allahpundit)

Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?

Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.

(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)

Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.

Q: But do you go on line for yourself?

Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.

So there you have the new "post-partisan" candidate of change....mocking a man for his disability. Way to stay out of the gutter Senator.....

Mommy Wars

I really have tried to bite my tongue on a lot of this. After all, if you are going to play politics, you have to be able to endure the "slings and arrows". However, the crescendo has reached such a fever pitch that something must be said.

Since August 29, the liberal/progressive side of the political debate started trying to find the "dirt" on Sarah Palin. The attacks have ranged from juvenile to vile. Rather than address the ones that have come out so far, I will point you to these two websites as they have done all the hard work so far.

But the arguments that have really stuck in my craw are the statements that Governor Palin can't run for office and take good care of her son Trig and the converse (that came out yesterday) complaining that Governor Palin is (gasp) taking her children with her on the campaign trail! These are the kinds of attacks (you can't work and be a good mom) that women have been fighting for half a decade. What is worse is that this is coming out of supporters of the party that supposedly gives a fig about womens rights! While I don't find this surprising (after all they used these tactics against Senator Clinton in the primaries) the sexist comments coming out of Senator Obama's supporters are growing in their histrionics.

Senator Obama and his surrogates in the media are worried. They understand that Sarah Barracuda is "the real deal" and they are trying their darnedest to smear her. It got to the point where Democrat Kersten Powers (HT Gary at LFR) took the feminist movement and the media to task over their reaction.

Last night, "Sarah Barracuda" more than lived up to that slogan as she fought back at the media and Washington naysayers who've ridiculed her as a bimbo bumpkin interloper and showed she isn't going to be pushed around.

Had the media not been viciously attacking her family for the last few days, the speech might've seemed too tough. With that backdrop, it was more than appropriate.

The Obama camp also gave her the perfect chance to smack it around for being elitists - since its first response to John McCain picking her was to ridicule the size of her home town.

On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she's savaged for being a working mother.

Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good 'ole girls telling you what to think.

The latest offense came from Senator Obama himself when he turned Governor Palin's "pitbull/hockey mom joke" around saying that even if you put "lipstick on a pig it's still a pig". Imagine the righteous howls of indignation if someone referred to either Senator Obama (and his policies) or Senator Biden - I don't care HOW jokingingly - as a "pig". The left and the media would be apoplectic!

It is obvious that the Obama campaign is scared to death of Governor Palin. If not why would they have sent an army of lawyers and opposition researchers to Juneau and Wasilla to try to dig up dirt of Sarah Palin. (HT Ed) . It is also obvious that supporters of Senator Obama only care about feminist "ideals" when the feminist is one of theirs. I just heard an Obama supporter call into Rush Limbaugh's program and on national radio call Governor Palin a "smelly pig"!

And that could very well be the tale of the campaign as this site indicates:

We keep saying this — and no one seems to listen — but over the course of this campaign, we’ve met about 50 people who worked on McGovern-72, and every one of them said to us, without quivocation, that the main reason McGovern lost to Nixon was McGOVERN’S SUPPORTERS. The way McGovern’s “youth army” behaved, and the terrible things they did in McGovern’s name, worked against their candidate and every day drove more people who would have never voted Republican over to Nixon.

We’ll try to spell this out even more clearly: when people see things like this anti-Palin Ebay stunt, it makes normal people wonder why they would support SoetorObama, if this is what his followers are up to. It makes people who might have pulled the lever for this man question the very act of putting someone like this into office, when these are the types of followers he attracts.

People do not want to be associated with this sort of filth – and the fact that SoetorObama’s campaign doesn’t clamp down hard and stop this sort of daily, vulgar, nastiness says A GREAT DEAL about the person Oprah calls “The One”.

They are correct - the more "The One" and his followers stoop into the gutter to attack Sarah, Bristol and Trig Palin, the more they are going to turn off voters that only get their news in 30 second sound bytes on the nightly news. They are going to remember Senator Obama's pledge not to engage in this kind of cynical personal attack and they are going to reject him just as certainly as the electorate rejected Senator McGovern back in 1972.

Out of Touch Again

The headline says it all "Candidate does not know how many houses he owns". Only the headline is not from 2008. It's from 2004! In the last two days, Senator Barack Obama has tried to make hay over a remark by Senator John McCain where he said that he didn't know how many homes that he and his wife owned. Sen. Joe Biden even quipped today that Sen. McCain needs to "figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at". The problem with this is that when Republicans raised the charge about then nominee John Kerry in 2004.....

The aggregate value of these five homes is roughly$29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic. John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate.

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before???? Oh yeah that's where...

When I did a story about John McCain's release of his tax returns a few weeks ago, I somehow missed out on the glaring fact that Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain has a prenuptial agreement with second wife Cindy McCain. Well, at least she let him keep his maiden name.

So let's see just who owns those homes...the condo in Arlington, the Phoenix high rise and two of the four properties near Sedona are all owned by the Cindy Hensley McCain Family Trust. The 2nd Phoenix high rise condo and the Phoenix duplex...all owned by the Wild River Rental LLC. The two condos in Coronado CA are owned by the Dream Catcher Family Trust LLC. The other two Sedona properties (a house and a vacant property) are owned by the Sedona Hidden Valley LP. The condo in La Jolla CA is owned by the Margurite Hensley Survivors Trust. Eleven total properties and not one of them has John McCain's name on it. All are owned by either a business trust or by his wife - just the same as John and Teresa Kerry.

So before any of you Democrats decide to cast stones remember this. Four years ago, you defended John Kerry when he was faced with the same accusations. Do you really want to go down this particular road?

Slamming The Door.

I was going to write on this yesterday, but I got bombarded with so many other more timely stories so I let it slide to today. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was campaigning for Senator McCain in Wisconsin on Monday and he gave a speech on energy at the UW Madison.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain, promoted the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's energy policy and critiqued his rival's as he campaigned across Wisconsin on Monday.

Pawlenty said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would "slam the door shut" on additional nuclear power and offshore drilling if elected president because of his conditional support for those options.

McCain's plans to open more U.S. coastal waters to exploration for oil and gas and to add 45 nuclear power plants by 2030 would do more reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, Pawlenty said.

"Senator McCain's proposal is bold, it's aggressive, it's an all-of-the-above approach," Pawlenty said at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Senator Obama has taken a very minimalist, or none-of-the-above, or very-few-of-the-above approaches."

Senator McCain has stated many times that he would support an energy program along the lines of the American Energy Act which is currently bottled up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. To be fair he was not always in favor of expanded drilling - however, given the current circumstances, he has realized that his prior plan will no longer work. Senator Obama also has come around to the realization that prior restrictions on domestic energy production can not longer work, however his conversion to the cause has been tepid at best. All of his speeches on the subject have been made with one foot firmly planted on EACH side of the debate.

On Sunday, Obama accused McCain of dropping his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling in recent months only because he saw it was a popular position in polls. The Illinois senator has said he could accept some additional drilling -- but only as part of a comprehensive energy package.

To be fair Senator Obama - Senator McCain at least made the change before the AEA debate got "popular". The same can not be said of you. Your policy shift was made in just the last two weeks when it became overwhelmingly apparent that the American people wanted more domestic energy production and they wanted it NOW!

Obama also has said nuclear energy would be on the table if he's elected.

Pawlenty said Obama's positions would be a roadblock to increasing the nation's energy supply. "I personally believe that if Barack Obama gets elected, he will slam the door shut on these options," he said. "If Senator McCain is elected, he will open the door to these options and allow our energy supply to be increased and take some of the pressure off our energy crisis in the country."

To be fair to both Senators, I am issuing a challenge. Even though the discharge petition does not apply to the Senate - PUT YOUR NAME ON THE PETITION. Show the American people that you mean what you say. Tell Speaker Pelosi that it is time for a real American Energy plan - one that will enrich the American people and not just her family and the businesses SHE has money invested in. Let the House debate and amend the American Energy Act TODAY.

Sign the Petition. Show the American people that you really mean what you say!

Backlash!

Last month, I wondered if the press might actually be hurting the Obama Campaign. Well if the Pew Research group is to be believed, the answer appears to be yes.

Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.

With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.

Obama, the 47-year-old Illinois senator who would become the first black president, has dominated political news coverage much of the year. According to an ongoing Pew study, Obama has appeared in more news stories this year and more people say they have heard more about him than McCain, the longtime Arizona senator who also ran for president in 2000.

Two-thirds of Republicans and about half of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of Democrats, a significant number.

At the same time, nearly four in 10 said they've been hearing too little about McCain — about four times the number who said so about Obama. About half of Republicans, four in 10 independents and even a quarter of Democrats said they've not heard enough about the GOP candidate.

The poll was conducted from Aug. 1-4 and involved telephone interviews with 1,004 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

This says a whole lot about the media and how they may, in their own special way actually have contributed more to the demise of the Obama candidacy than any gaffe or Republican "dirty trick" could have ever done. Good work guys!

Polling Analysis

A friend sent me their copy of the Evans Novak Political Report. Now before some of you more liberal readers scoff, realize that Robert Novak is considered to be the consummate pro by everyone in DC and by those who seriously follow politics. That said I found their insights on the most recent polling to be extremely interesting.

1. The seven-charge indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), highlights two themes of this year: Republican losses in Congress will range from bad to catastrophic, and the anti-reform wing of the GOP seems to be steeped in corruption.
   
   
2. The good news for Democrats is that the indictment could lead to another Senate seat pickup. The good news for conservatives is that the continued march into scandal or even into jail of pro-pork, old-school GOP lawmakers could help the conservative reform wing of the party.

The anti-reform wing of the Republican Party does indeed seem to be steeped in corruption. Whether it is true or not matters not - in this biz, perception IS reality and the sooner that the RNC, the state party officials and the incumbents themselves realize this, the sooner the GOP can start regaining seats. This analysis also bodes quite well for candidates like Jason Chaffetz. As he said in a recent interview with Tammy Bruce, issues like fiscal discipline and integrity ARE resonating with the voters.

What also struck me was the analysis of the Presidential race. I want to break it down into a couple of pieces.

National Polls: The complete lack of movement in the national polls is good news for Sen. John McCain and bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, even as the Democrat continues to hold a modest lead.

First, a word of caution: National polls are generally given undue attention in the press. There is no national election, but rather 51 state elections. On that score, our Electoral College count shows a razor-thin Obama lead (273 to 265).

I have to agree 100% with this statement. While polls are a good snapshot of the national mood they don't mean a thing - especially this far out.

1. The usefulness in national polls is in getting rough ideas of a candidate's popularity, and more importantly as a judge of momentum. It is on this latter score that Obama needs to worry. On June 4, Rasmussen Reports released its first daily tracking poll of the general election (3,000 likely voters over three nights, with a margin of error of +/-2%), and it showed Obama 47%, McCain 45%. Fifty-seven days later, the Wednesday, July 30 poll showed Obama at 48% to McCain's 46%—virtually no movement. In the interim, neither candidate has shown movement outside the margin of error.
   
   
2. The first observation to draw is that voters aren't paying close attention, and so minimal movement is to be expected. This is important: It's still too early to foresee the outcome of the race.

If you remember, July polling in 2004 had John Kerry up on President George W. Bush and we all know how that turned out, don't we.

4. But the deeper significance of these national poll numbers is the way in which Obama lags his party and has failed to break 50% nationally, even while all the breaks go his way.

5. In all corners of the country, it's good to be a Democrat and bad to be a Republican. Democrats are guaranteed double-digit gains in the U.S. House (with pickups possible even in places like Alabama and Idaho) and significant gains in the Senate (with no seriously vulnerable incumbents or open seats). On generic ballots, Democrats post 15% leads.

6. Why does Obama lag his party? His unprecedented combination of youth, race, and inexperience makes many voters wary. Playing basketball well and often appeals to many voters, but it may come across to others as unpresidential, especially in combination with his thin résumé and younger-than-his-age looks.

7. Even more worrisome is the complete lack of a poll bump from Obama's overseas visit. He conducted himself well, and scored a coup with the "Maliki endorsement" (the statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in favor of an Obama-like timetable for withdrawal from Iraq). The trip was specifically aimed at making him "look presidential."

The "Maliki endorsement" was followed by a high ranking Iraqi official saying this.

TERMED a "learning" trip, Sen. Barack Obama's eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

"He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say."

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement.

8. His world tour had two downsides: his utter refusal to accept that the surge was successful or to offer a credible counter-argument makes him look more like a demagogue than a pragmatist. Showing up in London, Paris, and Berlin could make him look more like jet-setter or Euro-rail-hopping student than a world leader. Declaring himself a "fellow citizen of the world," further feeds that perception.

A sentiment that was echoed by the above mentioned senior Iraqi official.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn't have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Lastly...

9. Regarding state-by-state polls, closer examination reveals more troubles for Obama than a surface examination would suggest. In many states where Obama is "ahead" in the polls, such as Nevada, there remain nearly 20% undecided or third-party voters. Almost all of these voters will eventually choose Obama or McCain. Obama's appeal has been so clearly on display, and Republicans are so unpopular already, that it's hard to imagine what Obama could do to win over the voters who are still undecided, especially in the states where Obama already campaigned hard in the primaries.

What is, I think most concerning (or it should be anyway) is in blue purple states like Minnesota where Senator Obama is only up by a couple of points. In this current toxic atmosphere (for Republicans anyway), he should be way up in Minnesota.

Is this all written in stone - of course not. We still have over three months until Election Day and a lot can happen in this short period of time. However, these are trends that, going into the DNC Convention, have to be troubling the brain trust at the DNC Headquarters.

Trouble In Paradise

In a really lame attempt to bail out their guy, Democrats across the country are trying to paint Senator John McCain with the same (or is it McSame?) tax dodging brush that candidate Al Franken was tarred with.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) criticized his DFL opponent Al Franken when Al admitted to paying his taxes in MN and NY when they should have been spread over MN, NY and 17 other states. Al then corrected the problem. But now it comes to light that the Republican Presidential candidate Grandpa McSame owes back taxes on a California condo:

Newsweek is set to publish a highly embarrassing report on Sen. John McCain, revealing that the McCains have failed to pay taxes on their beach-front condo in La Jolla, California, for the last four years and are currently in default, The Huffington Post has learned.

Under California law, once a residential property is in default for five years, it can be sold at a tax sale to recover the unpaid taxes for the taxpayers.
(Huffington Post)

Will Norm condemn Grandpa McSame as he did Al?

There is one teeny, tiny problem with that theory E......Senator McCain has NO CONTROL over Mrs. McCain's property, thanks to a nice little pre-nuptial agreement that he signed. Contrary to Senator McCain, Al Franken was CEO and COO of his company....AL WAS the Company where Sen. McCain has no say in the matter.

Meanwhile, MPR (of all places) just released a poll that shows that Angry Al, LOOSES many of the "moderate" voters that intend to vote for Senator Obama. Things are must be really bad for Al back in Minnesota if that is the case.

Seriously - if this is all the left can come up with (on Senator McCain) they are in real trouble. Maybe things are not going to be as bad for the Republic as some think it will be. Time will tell I suppose.

Which Came First....

Michelle Malkin has a report from Senator McCain's private meeting with Chicago area Hispanics. What caught my eye in her correspondents report was this particular quote.

He said ” My state has been enriched by the Hispanic culture in Arizona.”

Then John McCain asked a question “Did you know this? I bet some of you did not know that Spanish was spoken in Arizona before English” …Loud cheers from the audience.

I'm wondering if the Senator (and his audience) really want to go down that particular road. Because if they WERE to go down that particular road, then we need to talk to the Mexican people about who was really there "first".

I am an American of Mexican decent. As best as I know from the genealogical research that has been done this far, my Mexican ancestors were actually Mayan or of a similar native tribe. Spain (where the Spanish language comes from) were the first oppressors of the Native Mexican people....especially "my" people. So, Senator McCain, if we are to go down that particular road, then you need to talk about the Hopi Indians and the Hopi language - they were in Arizona "first"....as were the Cocopa tribe and the Halchidhoma and the Halyikwamai and the Havasupai and the Kohuana and the Maricopa and the Mohave tribes (there are many more). They were all there LONG before the Spaniards gathered that territory FOR SPAIN (not Mexico BTW). All of these tribes (if there are any of their decedents left) have more of a historical claim on the land that the Spaniards and THEIR Mexican decedents do!

Look - a refresher course in history is obviously needed here. The territories that became the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado Nevada and Utah were PURCHASED by the United States of America for $15MILLION ($313million in 2006 dollars) under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that was signed in 1848 to end the Mexican American War....a war that was started when MEXICO invaded the sovereign territory of Texas (in response to their declaration of independence and subsequent annexation into the United States). Nothing was "stolen" from Mexico...as a matter of fact, numerous attempts were made by the French, British AND American governments to avoid conflict and to resolve the dispute between the US and Mexico. The Mexican Government had stated that the annexation of Texas would be considered an "act of war" but the citizens of Texas had made it quite clear that they wanted to be part of the United States....not part of Mexico (remember the Alamo?) .

If we are going to use history (Spanish was spoken in Arizona before English was) Senator McCain, let's give a complete telling of that history. Yes, the Mexican influence in the Western United States was an important influence. However, this is not Mexico....it has not been part of Mexico for 160 years. It is NOW a part of the United States of America. English is now spoken here and while it is vitally important to remember where we came from (the Yucatan Peninsula in my case) it is just as important to remember where we are and where we are going. We are never going to move forward AS A WHOLE COUNTRY if we are continuing to divide ourselves up (that is yet another post for the day). The Great Seal of the United States has a phrase on it that we need to remember - E Pluribus Unum.....our of many ONE. This nation must become one again - with common laws, goals and a common language - if we are ever going to move forward as a nation.

If you really want to lead a great American resurgence Senator McCain...quit dividing us!

The McCain Meltdown

Back in 2000, the conventional wisdom was that John McCain was "THE Man" for 2008. Today he is running a distant 3rd among declared candidates and a disappointing 4th if you include Fred Thompson. Many have speculated that age, immigration and the "Gang of 14" are to blame for his polling and fundraising doldrums. Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel has another thought in today's Wall Street Journal.

"John McCain's campaign fell into disarray this week, kicked off by the news it had raised a scant $24 million so far. Mark these money woes down to any number of problems, but don't entirely discount the McCain-Feingold effect.
Let's stipulate that most of the good senator's troubles stem from high-profile policy disagreements he's had with his own base. He's tweaked noses on global warming and slapped faces on immigration. His admirable decision to stand strong on Iraq has been undermined by his tendency to stand weak on national security issues such as interrogations and enemy combatants. And economic conservatives just don't trust a guy who won't admit that cutting taxes is good.
Yet while each of these issues has undoubtedly taken its financial toll, Mr. McCain has labored under yet one more burden: McCain-Feingold. He was the prime author of that 2002 law, which took direct aim at his own party and its activists, making it harder for them to collect money, register voters and voice opinions about candidates. It left the very people so vital to a campaign in its early stages--those who write checks, knock on doors, turn out for primaries--furious with him. Talks with party officials and activists today suggest that hostility remains, and has played into his money difficulties. "

I have not been shy about the fact that BCRA is the major reason why I will never support Senator McCain in his quest for the White House. My friend Amendment X has made it quite clear which of the Bill of Rights he is most partial to. Mine would have to be Amendment 1! There is a reason that the Founding Fathers put free speech FIRST, because without it all the other Amendments are at risk. John McCain's bill puts free speech under the thumb of a government that is hostile to said speech.

I won't say that this BCRA is the main reason for McCain's fall from grace. I can more certainly claim that his support of the amnesty bill was the final nail in the coffin. Perhaps it should be said that campaign finance reform was the first nail - a nail that can never be undone because of the very limitations that Senator McCain put on his own campaign.