Jim DeMint Wants an 'Up or Down Vote' on Offshore Oil

Jim DeMint (R-SC) is talking of shutting down the Senate until Harry Reid (D-NV) allows the Senate an up or down vote on opening up offshore drilling in the U.S.

Thank God.

Right now the price of gas is Republicans hole card. While the Democrats are great at (wrongly) blaming Bush for the high cost of gasoline, they have no plan whatsoever to bring the cost down.  As I've said before, Republicans can and should use this to their advantage.  I really believe the "unofficial" campaign slogan for every single Republican should be:

It's the price of gasoline, stupid.

DeMint correctly ridicules Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08) and her call to Bush to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserves:

It’s really ironic and even hypocritical that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats think we ought to pull oil out of the ground from our national reserve but not pull it out of the ground in other places.

He's correct, and while I do support opening up the SPR, I only support it if other conditions have been met.  And one of those conditions would be opening up offshore drilling.  If we're going to tap the SPR, we have to have a plan for filling it back up again (or making it obsolete), and that plan has to include finding a way to be less dependent on foreign oil.

Now, what would be a good way to do that?  Oh yeah.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

And some of the Republicans are starting to get it.  DeMint's plan is quite obviously a stunt. Even if he does get his up and down vote, it's unlikely that such a bill would ever find it's way to George W. Bush's (R-USA) desk.

But it gives the Republicans campaign fodder.  Any Democrat that votes against it in a state or district won by Bush in 2000 or 2004 will immediately go into the gun sights of the NRCC and NRSC.

The Candidates and The First Amendment

Earlier this week, I read in a couple places that Libertarians support Barack Obama (D-IL) over John McCain (R-AZ) for President by a pretty hefty margin (53% to 38%). And while I question the validity of this poll for several reasons, at least one well-known Libertarian mulls an Obama endorsement.

So, I thought it'd be fun to look at where the candidates stand on the Bill of Rights. Actually, I may extend that and look at other rights guaranteed (note, not "granted", when will our press get that right?) by further Amendments and the Supreme Court.

That seems like a good way to look at things from a Libertarian perspective. Libertarians are all about personal rights, right? I mean, that's the reason the name comes from "liberty".

So, conveniently there's a website about defending our First Amendment rights. It's called First Amendment Center.

Let's quote the First Amendment as a refresher, before we start:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Next, let's look at Mr. Obama. From the First Amendment Center:

In his 11 years in government service as a member of the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has taken varied stances on issues related to the First Amendment.

The article says that Obama has done well regarding improving government transparency, and has been "outspoken in supporting the expression of religious beliefs by public officials". He's also been strong in support of "separation of church and state", so the article gives Obama high marks here.

Lower marks for Obama occur in the area of "campaign-finance, petition and cultural-expression issues". One of the few bills actually drafted by Obama is the Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notificatin, Updates, and Posting Act in 2006. This bill strove to limit the effectiveness of lobbyists. However, lobbying is a form of the right to petition. This bill died in Committee.

He has worked to limit campaign financing from lobbyists and said that "his administration would prohibit past political appointees from lobbying the executive branch during his term". Once again, he is trying to limit people's ability to petition the government.

Other items of note are listed later in the article. He was critical of a "Choose Life" license place while a state senator in Illinois. He has complained about violent lyrics in rap music and advocated more indecency regulation of broadcasters. He threatened legal action against Lindsay Ashford, self-professed pedofile, who posted on his website to the "cuteness" of Obama's children.

And, from my own research, Obama supported the firing of Don Imus over his controversial radio show comments. But not a peep from him until forced to regarding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

He also supports strengthening "hate crime laws". To me, this is positively frightening, because hate crime legislation is the start down the road to the "thought police".

He claims to oppose the "Fairness Doctrine". Thank God. This puts him in opposition to his party though, so I question what he would do if President and a Democratic controlled Congress enacted Fairness Doctrine legislation.

So, that's Obama. Now let's look at John McCain.

The money quote:

I would rather have a clean government than one where quote 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.

Ouch. From a First Amendment supporters standpoint, it doesn't get much worse.

Obviously he's one of the men behind the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (usually known as McCain-Feingold). This bill stomped all over the First Amendment.

Another quote from McCain while discussing the bill:

Some will argue that the First Amendment of the Constitution renders unlawful any restrictions on the right of anyone to raise unlimited amounts of money for political campaigns. Mr. President, which drafter of the Constitution believed or anticipated that the First Amendment would be exercised in political campaigns by the relatively few at the expense of the many?

Due to McCain-Feingold, we've seen a huge increase in so-called "527s". These groups participate in the election process by usually promoting issues and telling you where the candidates stand on them. Since they don't directly advocate either candidate, they avoid regulation by the FCC under McCain-Feingold. McCain has introduced legislation to cut off the growth of these groups.

He introduced the Children's Internet Protection Act, which required public schools and libraries "to install filtering software on computers to block access to material that is obscene or deemed harmful to minors". He's done much to restrict broadcasters.

The article also mentions that he's been a supporter of a flag-desecration amendment toe the Constitution. While this proposed Amendment would limit your First Amendment rights, I personally have less of a problem with this one because he's working to do this the right way, through an Amendment, not congressional legislation or judicial fiat.

He's been a strong supporter of religious freedom, has made repeated statements that a candidate for President's religious views should not be an issue.

Doing a bit of research, it's hard to find any articles on the net related to John McCain and the First Amendment that are positive.

So, then, to the grades. I don't think Libertarians would be pleased with either, frankly.

Obama: C-

McCain: D- And many would say I'm being charitable with McCain.

The sad thing about both though is that they're both interested in "campaign finance reform", and are interested in going about it in a way that clearly limits free speech. Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 to vote on McCain-Feingold, but I think it's clear from his other statements that he would've voted for it. They're also very similar in their views on limits of freedom to broadcasters.

To be honest, I think Obama's grade is higher merely due to the brevity of his political career. There's little in his statements that make me think that he's a real supporter of free speech.

First Amendment: Advantage Obama.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to D- as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-

"When I was a United States Senator"

There's been a lot going around the net the last few days on yet another "nuanced" or "inartful" position statement by Barack Obama (D-IL) on Iraq.

Apparently he's not going to bring the troops home in 16 months after all.  You can read about it everywhere.  I'm not going to bother to link.

But here's the comment he made that got me:

I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator.

And people criticize George W. Bush (R-USA) for being arrogant?  Has the Presidential election happened already and I missed it? Shouldn't the state of Illinois hold a special election or appoint a replacement or something? I wouldn't want them to feel like they're not getting their due representation in Congress.

This man should not be allowed to speak without a teleprompter. And yes, I realize the irony of such a statement coming from a GWB supporter.

Barack Obama: Change We Can Believe In

Memo to Barack Obama: Never use a preposition to end a sentence (or phrase) with.

But that's not really my point here.

The point is that I really like this slogan. I think it's  a great one for him.

Why?

Because I can definitely believe in change when it concerns Barack Obama.  You can guarantee that if he says something today with absolute certainty, that he'll change his opinion on it tomorrow.

And more and more people are starting to notice. Even Markos Moulitsas (of Daily Kos):

Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base

Expect more and more "politics as usual" from this "new kind of politician" as the campaign continues.

Barack Obama: Change We Can Believe In.

GOP Can Take White House and Congress - In 2008

I know what you're thinking.  He's lost his mind.

I didn't say they would.  Merely that they could.  Bear with me.

Certainly, the Republicans in Washington, D.C. have done very little to encourage such a belief.  To be honest, if the election were held today, I wouldn't vote for my own Republican Congressman. My Republican Senator isn't up for re-election this year, but if he were, and again, if the election were held today, he wouldn't be receiving my vote either.

So, just to make you certain that I am aware of the uphill battle Republicans face, let me lay it out for you:

1. Attitudes like mine are not uncommon among the party base.
2. The Democratic Party has a huge cash edge.
3. Americans are focused on the economy, and that always helps the Democratic Party
4. The War in Iraq (despite it's success), continues to be an albatross around the necks of Republicans
5. George W. Bush's (R-USA) horrible poll numbers hurt can not be encouraging to Republicans either.

So, how can I possibly say that Republicans have a chance to win big in November?

To paraphrase James Carville and Bill Clinton:

It's the price of gas, stupid.

Let me play radio talk show host for a moment and give you a few carefully selected facts:

1. 77 percent of Americans believe that the government is to blame for the high cost of gas.
2. 74 percent of likely voters support oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
3. 65 percent of Americans "reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions"
4. 50 percent of Americans now support drilling in ANWR.
5. A plurality (47 percent to 45 percent) now say that drilling is more important than conservation/regulation.

These are all issues where the Democratic Party in Congress is on the wrong side.  On the top three, the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly on the wrong side.  And you can expect the numbers for #4 and #5 to rise as the summer goes on if gas prices continue to rise.

This is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Republicans.

I've said before that they need a new version of the Contract with America.  Right now they can do a very simple one.  A contract with one and only one item.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

It's time to push the Democrats to the wall on this issue.  Let your Republican Congressmen, Senators, and Candidates know that you want them to "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less."

I realize this blog has become sort of a one-trick pony lately with my endless discussions of gasoline and energy independence.  I'll repeat why:

It's the price of gas, stupid.

Now if the Republicans on Capitol Hill can only figure that out.

BlackFive Compares McCain and Obama's Character

From Jimbo's post today:

John McCain [(R-AZ)] was so loyal to the men he was imprisoned with he endured torture on their behalf.

Barack Obama [(D-IL)] associates with those who can help his career, and throws them right under the bus when they become inconvenient to his aspirations.

Yes, there are a lot of areas where John McCain and I are not in agreement (more on this in a future post), but there's no doubting his honor.  This was something that the left never understood about John Kerry (D-MA) and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They nominated a "military man" and a "war hero", thinking that this would finally shut up all the people on the right who criticize the left's dedication to the military.  They also thought they'd have a strong weapon against George W. Bush's National Guard service.

The problem was they nominated a man without honor.  Honor is important in America. At least it is if you're not decidedly left-of-center. The Swift Vets made America question, not only whether John Kerry was in fact a "war hero", but also cast serious doubts about his "honor" (note that people who followed John Kerry's entire life never had any doubts on this matter).

Neither John McCain's honor or his war hero status can be debated.  Once again, the left doesn't get that. They think that if it was fair to criticize John  Kerry's service, then it's fair to criticize John McCain's.  Because there's no doubt that he was in a POW camp for 5 years, and little doubt that his behavior their was beyond reproach.  And, while all service, no matter how long or where is something we should honor and respect, it seems that there's likely a big difference between 5 years in a POW camp and 3 months on a boat.

Once again, the Democrats have followed a winning formula. The "war hero" thing didn't work for them so they've gone back to the "anti-war" candidate.  But they're sticking to their guns on the honor thing.  He's making it almost a daily event to throw someone else under the bus, Rev. Wright, the Trinity Church, and Samantha Power, just to name a few. By November, there may be so many people under Obama's bus that they need a bigger bus.

The only "change" in Obama's politics are the faces of those around him, as more and more "turnover" occurs in the name of political expediency. Is it worse to have these associations? Or worse  to dump them when the going gets rough?  Neither are good, but, as I've said before, I'd have more respect for the man if he stuck by his longtime friends.

More and more, the Obama campaign is showing itself to be "politics as usual".

Gas Prices

Found this online:

Of course, that's absolutely true, as I've noted here before.

However, the UFCW is missing part of the story, someone please let them know.

Price of gas in America in January, 2001 (George W. Bush (R-USA) takes office): $1.46.

Price of gas in America in January, 2007 (Democratic Party takes Congress): $2.31.

Things that make you go, "hmmm".

With This Groundswell Of Support...

...maybe I should run. This is how they got Fred Thompson, too.

Gotcha! :)

InstaPundit Comments On "Swift Boating"

A good comment on the "swift boating of John McCain" is here.

I must disagree with charges that McCain is being "Swift Boated." For this to be a "Swift Boating," people who stayed at the Hanoi Hilton would have to say that McCain was lying about what he did there -- or perhaps that his repeated claims that events there were "seared, seared" in his memory are false, and he was never actually there at all -- and those people would have to be telling the truth.

Or as a friend of mine puts it:

swift boat (v.i.): to tell the truth about a Democrat.

As Glenn would put it:  Heh.

Americans Blame Congress For High Gas Prices

And Americans are right. As I've detailed here, several times.

Consumer Reports has a survey which showed:

that 77 percent of consumers single out the government's failure to implement an effective energy policy as a root cause for high gas prices

Good, unfortunately:

75 percent of consumers blame oil companies; and 70 percent blame foreign oil producers.

I suppose this is the "blame everyone" philosophy.  Scratch that, it's the "blame everyone but myself" philosophy. If you're driving that huge SUV or never carpool to work when you easily could (I fit into the latter category), then you're partially to blame as well.  The Greens are right on that one.

Here's good news though:

When asked about actions the federal government could take to reduce fuel costs, 81 percent want to allow more drilling in the United States and offshore and 90 percent support increasing alternative energy development.

Wow, maybe someone could start a petition or something.

Or, even better, maybe one of the Presidential candidates could use this in his campaign.

Naaaaah.