McCain – pledge of support for no-emission cars
Campaigning in Michigan McCain was introduced to a long-range electric car – The Volt
Michigan is a swing state this year – and many of its voters are bitter over DNC discrimination against its early primary.
McCain proposes a tax credit for those who purchase no-emission cars such as The Volt
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080718/D920ACFO0.html
Democrats are losing the fight on energy
Republicans urge drilling off shore and in ANWR, Democrats counter with the creation of a new tax on oil companies.
Already, the Bush cancellation of the ban on off shore drilling has caused prices at the pump to drop substantially. The Democrat plan would result in an immediate increase in the price.
The Democrat position – opposing drilling and independence – could shift momentum in the campaign to the side of the GOP…the issue is that big.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/338nlgoj.asp
Today’s presidential election is an echo of that in 1976
In 1976, Ford was and the Republicans were major underdogs throughout most of the campaign.
In the end, the result was razor thin, and vote fraud in Ohio could have been successfully challenged giving Ford the victory over Carter – Ford ordered no recount be allowed.
If elected, would Obama be another Carter? In truth, Carter was far more qualified based on his background and training. After all, Obama has never even held a real job.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/ghosts_of_1976_in_todays_campa.html
Opinion:
Democrats and FISA – a study in crass political calculation
The record is quite clear: for 40 years or more, Democrats have refused to oppose this nation’s enemies.
That was true among many Democrats during the war in Vietnam – John Kerry proving to be a major example of that when he returned from the war to slander those with whom he claims he fought, then proceeded to become a willing asset to the communist cause in that war. (I personally witnessed an anti American rally led by John Kerry -- at the base of the Washington Monument in November of 1971)
The bark of anti-war minions continues, of course. Many underwritten by the infamous George Soros who bankrolls many such left wing conspiracies. One of them, “Code Pink” – even assaulted wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital…then went on to continue their rants and raves assaulting Marines in the left wing bastion of Berkeley, California.
Democrats clearly have a problem with their image of being soft on national defense matters. Indeed such a bad image is justly deserved and quite reflective of Democrat policies and efforts. After all, not only has Senate Leader Harry Reid unilaterally surrendered in the war on terror, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried diligently (and failed totally) to halt funding US troops under fire in combat against radical Islamic terrorists.
Democrats have hounded military leaders on a variety of issues – they demand those who interrogate terrorists captured on the battle field proceed under rules reflecting political correctness. They are quite prepared to sacrifice protecting US lives to some incredible belief that terrorists have the same rights as US citizens. They don’t – or at least they most certainly should not.
During WWII – before the US at war faced enemies – not only on the battlefield, but here in our own country – the Roosevelt Administration dealt with such people as history and rational thinking dictates – they were rounded up and executed.
No one said a word. Nazi Germany was defeated as was Imperial Japan.
In today’s world, military security people must fear reporters from the mainstream media almost as much as they do the enemy on the battlefield. At least on the battlefield, they can shoot back.
Democrat rhetoric and actions regarding the government’s tapping into the phone calls of suspected terrorists, has been bitter indeed. Democrats thus leave themselves open to legitimate criticism – criticism that point to their being far more concerned about the well being of captured terrorists than they are about American lives.
The theory is quite sound, based on the record, but it’s also politically quite damaging if the fact can be effectively communicated to American voters.
Lewis Purdue – a long time observer of the political scene, offers his own insight on his blog – www.therewillbetruth.com.
Buddy
http://www.therewillbetruth.com/?p=60
Democrats and FISA: Did Obama Change His Mind or Is He Afraid?
Lewis Purdue
John Russonello, whose polling company handles Democratic political campaigns along with a mix of moderate to liberal clients believes that Democrats who voted for FISA’s domestic wiretapping and telecom amnesty did so not out of a fear of terrorists, but a fear of Republicans.
Yes, yes, the dears on the Left’s extreme fringes find only nuanced differences between Bin Laden and George Bush.
But back here on planet Earth, Russonello penned an opinion piece for the Chicago Tribune in which he said, “It was not the fear of terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists that motivated Barack Obama, many Democratic senators and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to grant President George W. Bush expanded powers to wiretap Americans in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“Instead, it was the fear of Republican campaign operatives who paralyze Democratic lawmakers with these words: ‘My Democratic opponent is weak on terrorism’.”
“The advice that Washington wise men give to Democratic incumbents is that, even if you think it is wrong, vote for the president’s anti-terrorism bills or the Republicans will do to you what they did to Max Cleland. A decorated Vietnam War hero, Cleland lost his seat in the U.S. Senate in 2002 when Georgia lawyer Saxby Chambliss ran ads declaring Cleland was soft on fighting terrorism.”
“Although it was six years ago, the shadow of Chambliss ads still looms large over the 21 Democratic senators, including the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, who voted last week to loosen court checks on government wiretaps.”
Russonello makes some very cogent arguments on why Democrats talk constitutional rights out of one side of their mouths then vote to infringe those rights anyway.
“I can only explain this as a phenomenon of the “incumbency class” in Washington,” Rusonnello writes. “These are the politicians and consultants who share an interest in avoiding distinctions on issues in order to get re-elected and rehired with the least amount of effort.
“This may work for Democrats in the Congress, but Barack Obama should be careful not to play this game of blur the lines. People do not want their president to be afraid, they want their president to lead.”
John McCain missed that vote, but his previous vote in favor of it makes that absence moot.
However Obama voted for it after saying he opposed it. In other words, he wasn’t for it before he was for it.
Political expedience, thy name is cowardice.
About the Author, by the Author:
"I've taught writing and journalism at Cornell University and UCLA, and am the author of 20 published books including several bestsellers. My books have sold more than 4 million copies. I put myself through college as a newspaper reporter and freelance magazine writer despite the fact that I was studying physics and biology. My most recent novel is Perfect Killer, published in Sept. 2005. Other novels include The Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God. A complete list of my books can be found at LewisPerdue.com. I have founded four companies, including a wine company a magazine and two technology firms; been a top aide to a U.S. Senator and a governor; run political races for Congress; and worked as a Washington correspondent (Ottaway/Dow-Jones, States News Service), a columnist for Gannett, The Wall Street Journal Online, CBS"
Comments