If Only - McCain on Obama

This is the speech I'd give after Sen. Obama's nomination if I was Sen. McCain.

I would like to congratulate Senator Obama on being the first African-American nominated for the presidency by a major party. This is a singular achievement that shows us how far America has come from some of the shameful moments in our not-too-distant past.

But now we have to talk about the issues, and on every meaningful issue, Senator Obama is wrong.

Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on employers in a limping economy -- a move Herbert Hoover taught us was a mistake.

Mr. Obama wants to achieve energy independence by the slowest conceivable route, continuing to transfer massive amounts of American wealth to people who oppose us in the mean time.

Mr. Obama thinks the way to fix the flaws in the finest health care system in the world is by putting federal beaurocrats in charge.

Mr. Obama sees the judiciary as an unelected legislature, able to make changes to our society that the voters don't support.

Mr. Obama sees the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war of terror rather than as an extension of it. He doesn't understand that if we beat al Qaida in Iraq, we won't have to fight them in LA, Chicago, or Miami.

Mr. Obama believes letting a baby die alone on a table is necessary to protect Roe v Wade. Even NARAL disagreed.

And Mr. Obama thinks he is a reformer when he has passed on every opportunity he has been given to work toward real, meaningful reform in both Illinois and the US Senate.

I congratulate Senator Obama on his historic achievement, but I think the American people know that this country does not need an Obama presidency.

They know this nation needs an economic policy that will keep capital in the market.

They know this nation needs to reduce energy costs and end our country's dependence on foreign energy sources as quickly as possible.

They know our country's health care system needs work, but we can improve it only by putting you in control of your health care.

They know this country needs a judiciary determined to interpret the law, not make it.

They know this nation can only keep itself safe if we totally defeat our enemies rather than leaving when things get tough, or worse, on the cusp of victory.

They know we lose nothing by protecting the most helpless among us and that we lose ourselves if we refuse.

And they know that real reform means taking a hard look at our government, daring to touch the third rails and to question the sacred -- like pork barrel spending, excessive regulation, and government agencies and programs which have lasted long past their usefulness.

The American people know what this country needs, and in November I am confident they will choose the candidate with the experience, judgment, and determination to lead this nation to new heights.

Obama at Saddleback

Coming back from vacation I've only just managed to watch the Saddleback forum (available at CNN), and one thing I haven't seen anyone else comment on was Obama's remark about judges.

He said he thinks Roberts supported giving the executive branch much more power than the founders intended.

When did Obama become an originalist? His favorite justices are Breyer and Ginsburg; they believe in a living, evolving Constitution. Why should he care what powers the founders wanted the president to have?

The other comment that really jumped out at me was his assertion that the rich would experience a "modest" tax increase. Now, he's said all he wants to do is let the current tax cuts expire. But when the president was trying to get these cuts passed we were told that the rich were going to get a huge tax cut.

So how does letting this "huge" tax cut expire constitute a "modest" increase?

Morning Demagoguery

The headline: Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes

The jist: "Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress ... about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period."

The demagoguery: "It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

The facts: "The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits." (Kudos to the AP for including this fact.)

Politicians: We can't live with 'em, and we can't live without 'em. But we can dream.

Obama, Pelosi, Energy, and Parties

Senator Obama finally says maybe he can support a little drilling. Really, he had to; it was getting so that every fillup was like a McCain ad. I think the FEC was starting to track gas sales.

But Sen. Obama has a problem in Nancy Pelosi; she says she's trying to save the planet. I don't remember that being in the job description.

Anyway, she's worried about something with questionable data that might be a problem in 100 years; the rest of us are worried about indesputable economics that will be a problem next month. Gas is $4/gal; milk is next. Everything is tied the price of oil, and people need some relief.

But Speaker Pelosi, like many Democrats, says that drilling wouldn't affect the price of oil or gas for at 10 years (it used to be 5 and gets longer all the time). So it was with some giggling I read about the rejection letter a new study received from the journal of the International Association for Energy Economics. The study says that opening more drilling now, even when the oil is not yet available, will lower prices now.

The editors responded with a polite everybody already knows that:

"Basically, your main result (the present impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee)."

But Madame Pelosi (and Harry Reid in the Senate) won't even let the question of drilling come up for debate, much less a vote.

However, she's telling embattled Democrats that they can run on drilling and blame her. This illustrates the problem with parties.

If you're conservative (or in this case just want lower gas prices) but vote for your local Democratic Congressman because "he's okay," you're also voting for Nancy Pelosi. As long as the Democratic party rules the House, she will never allow drilling to even come up for a vote. If you want more oil, you can't vote for your Democrat. To get rid of her, you have to get rid of him. Sorry, dude.