Might as well make the name match the socialist reality:

Here are the highlights from briefing

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

1115

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

Given that every nationalised industry everywhere around the world has failed completely, the only explanation for this desire is an ardent belief that socialism is worth economic collapse. That, plus the chances for corrupt patronage which Democrats would love to get their hands on…

Seems they are having trouble raising all the money they’d like:

Facing a $15 million budget shortfall, organizers of the Democratic National Convention are cutting events while hoping Barack Obama’s emergence as the likely presidential nominee will spur his vast army of donors to pony up.

The convention’s host committee was expected to report on its financial position late Monday in Denver. The committee is under contract to the Democratic National Committee to raise $40.6 million of an overall convention budget of about $70 million. Several people knowledgeable about the committee’s activities projected it would be about $15 million short of its goal.

The convention opens on Aug. 25, giving the committee just 10 weeks to come up with the money. Some faulted the slowing economy and the protracted Democratic primary as the two major reasons the city’s host committee has struggled to raise the cash.

“It’s a significant amount and a big concern,” acknowledged Rick Ridder, a Denver-based Democratic strategist who has helped the city’s convention efforts.

As recent as a week or two ago I was stating my certainty that Democrats would come up with the money – but now they are talking of cutting down the show, which means not only are they short, but they have fading hopes of making up the shortfall. Obama is still generating massive enthusiasm…among upper class whites and black Americans; could it be that these voters, enthused for Obama, don’t really care too much about the Democratic party, as an institution? Also, did Obama and Hillary just drain so much cash out of Democratic donors that they are having trouble pulling more money out of their pockets? Or is it that the varied divisions in the party, masked by Obama-mania, are resulting in a drop off in overall Democratic enthusiasm for November?

Time will tell, but it isn’t good news for the Democrats than in a year where the political stars have all aligned in their favor that they can’t raise enough money to cover their own convention.

Interesting:

More than almost anyone in public life, Joe Lieberman knows from experience how to finesse a vice-presidential question. At the end of an impromptu press conference after a visit to discuss global warming with sixth graders here on Monday, Al Gore’s 2000 veep pick was asked if he would be John McCain’s running mate this time around. “No,” Lieberman says flatly, as if the question were as ludicrous as his joining the antiwar movement. All Lieberman would add when prodded by a follow-up question is, “I think in this, as in so much else, [McCain] has his head screwed on right. I think he’s looking for somebody who shares his priorities and would be capable of being president.”

But in a presidential year filled with firsts (African-American nominee, serious woman candidate, former POW to be his party’s standard-bearer), Lieberman retains the intriguing potential to become the first Jewish, party-crossing, second-time-around vice-presidential nominee in American history. While McCain is keeping his vice-presidential deliberations intensely private, it is not hard to pick up Republican whispers that the wild-card Lieberman speculation is grounded in reality rather than water-cooler fantasy. No McCain campaign sidekick — not South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham nor former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina — does more than Lieberman to burnish the GOP candidate’s reputation as a different-drummer Republican. As top McCain strategist Charlie Black says about Lieberman (talking in general, not as a potential running mate), “Joe, who is nationally known for having run for vice president and being elected [in 2006] as an independent, is the best possible character witness you can have for McCain’s independence and bipartisan approach.”

Only a Shemanesque, “if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve” denial would put this concept to bed. Still, it appears unlikely – but it also comes down to a careful calculus in an election year which promises a close vote at the end of the race. Conventional wisdom (which I think correct) holds that McCain’s best chance of completely uniting and energising the conservative base is to nominate a VP who is firmly in the conservative camp. On the other hand, would a McCain/Lieberman ticket pull in more disaffected Democrats than might be lost on the conservative side, with the additional prospect of a Lieberman right turn luring conservatives back to the fold? It must be kept in mind that Lieberman is a conservative Jew – and while he trimmed a bit to the left in 2000 for the sake of Gore, I think that he could easily wind up “out conservativing” McCain on some of the social issues crucial to Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics. Nominating Lieberman would likely put Florida completely out of reach for Obama, and might well put New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in play for McCain – a fatal mixture for any Democrat seeking the White House.

Movement conservative or “hand across the aisle”? What should McCain do?

So says Roll Call – and while he is the target of a bribery investigation and the Feds found a $90,000.00 bribe stashed in his ‘fridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts he wins in a walkover…because his district is safely Democratic and the only thing which will make Democrats get rid of a corrupt person is if that person risks the loss of a seat.

The real “culture of corruption” in DC – it always had a “D” after it’s name.

Just one man left to be cleared:

A military judge on Tuesday dismissed the case against the highest-ranking U.S. Marine charged in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha, whittling down the list of those who must still face justice for the 2005 incident to just the accused ringleader.

Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

Folsom’s decision means that, out of eight Marines originally charged in December 2006, six have won dismissals of their charges and one has been cleared at court martial.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

Folsom threw out the charges against Chessani, a 44-year-old Colorado native, after finding that a four-star general who oversaw the case could have been influenced by an investigator who later became his adviser.

The judge ruled that military prosecutors could refile the case but it was not immediately clear if they would do so. The prosecution could also appeal his ruling.

It will be very hard to get a conviction against a “ringleader” who, apparantly, had no ring to lead because no one else is going to be convicted of the alleged crime. Essentially, the whole Haditha case appears to be enemy propaganda cooked up against our troops and sadly taken up by the American left (most prominently by the very ex-Marine Murtha) looking for any club they could to beat President Bush with.

The mean, cruel and spiteful way the left has attacked our effort in Iraq turns my stomach and makes me ashamed to think that such people can be my fellow Americans.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin says it all.

Given that the people he’ll anger (rich liberals) won’t vote for him while is looks to be something which can help everyone else, this might be a winning idea for November:

ARLINGTON, VA. – As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”

Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”

McCain admitted offshore drilling would only be helpful in the short term, but would provide a good start in helping the U.S. develop other sources of energy. “We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” McCain said. “Exploration is a step toward the longer term goal.”

It is time we started to shove aside the liberals who’s invariable solution is to make things worse – how much money have we sent overseas, often to hostile people and entities, because a bunch of liberals were determined not to have a shadowy oil platform 10 miles off Malibu? Oil must eventually cease to be our primary source of energy, but while we’re still an oil-powered civilization, we’re worse than fools to deny ourselves what Nature has provided.

In the fall, the race might turn on the “get things done” program of McCain vs Obama’s “perhaps we’ll do something later” platitutdes.

Over at Battle Born Politics.

We hear much of this, but let us actually think of the ways and means we can cut our oil consumption. We’re going to have a rule or two:

1. It can’t be something already put out by the Obama or McCain campaigns.

2. It must not require any new technology.

3. It must not require any direct government expenditure.

4. It must not add to the regulatory burden on the economy.

5. It must allow people to be in charge of their own energy consumption choices.

Herewith some of my ideas:

A: Switch from a standard 8 hours, five days a week at work to 10 hours, four days a week.

In theory, this would cut America’s collective commute – and the fuel consumed therein – by 20%; in actuality, it would be less even if it became the norm, but I’ll bet that a widespread application of this would reduce our gasoline consumption by 10%, as well as greatly cutting down auto emissions.

As for the practical terms of it – I and the Mrs have been working “four tens” for years now, and we’ve become so accustomed to it that we find it incomprehensible how anyone has any real fun with only two days a week off. Such a proposal would allow for people to have more usuable leisure time (that two hours you’re currently off each weekday are rather worthless for recreation in any real sense), more time to spend with family, more time to spend on personal activities (you think I’d blog this much if I had to put in a five day week?) and would allow for very flexible work schedules (some people, like me, will prefer Fri-Sat-Sun, but others will prefer Mon-Tue-Wed, or any combination you can think of). My preferred method of encouraging this – tax breaks for businesses which allow it.

B: Large trucks only to travel between 7pm and 7am.

Large trucks tend to clog the highways as they are slower and less nimble than automobiles – at rush hour, this tends to slow down traffic greatly, causing greater consumption of fuel for all concerned. By getting them off the road during the day we will make the commute much faster and easier (already made so, of course, by the fact that 20% less people are trying to get to downtown each day in line with Proposal A) and I believe that it can be demonstrated that keeping truck traffic to the night hours will show that average time on the road for the trucks is reduced, thus reducing the cost of shipping goods as well as the amount of fuel consumed. Preferred way to encourage – once again, tax breaks for transportation companies who will do this.

C: Encourage telecommuting.

How many millions of us spend our work day in front of a computer in a cubicle? I do and the Mrs does. The difference? She rolls out of bed, brushes her teeth, grabs a bite to eat and then goes into the home office to work. Zero fuel expenditure for her morning commute, as well as being able to sleep in later. As for me, I drive 18 miles each way to do a job I could just as well do at my kitchen counter on a lap top. A neighbor down the street telecommutes to New York City every day – her “workspace” being her back patio next to the pool, where she’s able to put in a solid days work as well as become the most perfectly tanned person I’ve ever known. There is, as far as I can tell, no downside to telecommuting – and we can make a great upside for corporations by allowing them to write off the cost of setting up telecommuting for their employees.

Those are three that I thought up (though the “four tens” thing was actually suggested by the Mrs – too close to the reality for me to actually notice that I spend less on gas than most because I’ve only got to drive in four days a week). What do you think of them? What would you do?

Discuss.

Then you know the Democrat has told a pretty brazen lie:

Is Obama smearing Rush?

News item: Barack Obama campaign starts new Web site to fight smears from political opponents at http://www.fightthesmears.com.

The first smear mentioned:

“LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word ‘whitey’ from the pulpit of Trinity United.”

Well. No. This is what Limbaugh said:

“The rumor is — and we don’t like dealing with rumors here — but the rumor is that Michelle Obama from the pulpit of this church used the term ‘whitey.’ Some are saying be very careful with this because she might have said ‘why’d he,’ why did he, the contraction ‘why’d he’ instead of ‘whitey.’ ”

He added: “I can’t find anybody who’s seen it.”

So while Limbaugh was happy to wallow in the rumor, he was careful not to claim the tape exists.

More on this when someone gets around to creating http://www.clarifyfightthesmears.com.

I have to figure that Team Obama is going to be pretty ticked off at this – for 20 years now the left’s primary means of slamming Rush has been to misquote and/or take him out of context. Usually, whenever someone on the left makes an accusation like this against Rush, the MSM gleefully joins in…but someone at the Sun-Times (no doubt now at risk of being transferred to the obituaries page) caught the lie (well, “catch” is too strong a word when you’re speaking of figuring out that a Democrat has lied…usually it involves no more effort than noticing that their lips are moving) and then actually did the right thing and pointed it out.

I get lots of rumors in my in-box, too – probably not as many as Rush as I’m just a little blogger, but in the attempt to smear an opponent, no stone – or little blog – is left unturned in the attempt to get the smear out there. So, someone started this rumor of Michelle Obama and “whitey” – is it true? Who the heck knows? But given that the Obama’s sat for 20 years in the pews of a racist, anti-American church, protestations from the Obama’s about accusations of “whitey” ring rather hollow…the Obama’s should have thought about this thing oh, the second or third time Wright went off on a racist rant…little late to clean that muck off themselves in time for November, 2008.

And if you fall for this, then you’re an exceptionally dense person:

Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into “green energy” and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the fall campaign, Obama said he would take a much more hands-on approach than would Republican John McCain. He again criticized McCain’s proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax. It would “actually do real harm,” Obama said, by reducing revenue for road and bridge construction even as oil companies make record profits.

Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.

A President can only do so much, of course, and just how much effort do you think ultra-leftwing extremist Obama, working with a very liberal Democratic Congress, will expend on cutting taxes vis a vis raising taxes and spending? I’m sure that if Obama wins the “middle class tax cut” will make it into the rhetoric for a while, but I’ll also bet that, like Clinton, Obama will find out that, painful as it may be (for you and me, that is), there’s just no room in the budget for a tax cut…this is because we can’t afford it…can’t afford, that is, to leave your own money in your own pocket. And “we” means “government bureaucrats” and not, you know, “me and you”.

Of leftist moonshine and American defeat is what you want, thne Obama is your man – on the other hand, if hard nosed reality and American victory is what you want, then McCain will be your man in 2008.