This is the press release from John McCain on the crisis in Georgia. It is a clear example of why we absolutely must elect McCain in November. This is no time for a hand-holding love-in. Russia is resurging. Jihad is still on the move. We need someone with character, leadership skills and experience.
Statement by John McCain on the Crisis in Georgia
There are many compelling reasons to vote for John McCain. Near the top of the list is Barack Obama, but I would argue that the best reason is John McCain, himself--a man of faith and principles, a fiscal and social conservative in the model of Ronald Reagan.
Taxation: Instead of proposing tax increases and allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, as Barack Obama is suggesting, McCain is fully for the Reagan model of economic stimulus--giving the economy more of its own money to invest in itself and grow. Taken from John McCain's campaign website, these are the topic headers about his plans regarding taxation:
Social Issues: If you're a social conservative and aren't impressed yet, consider this abbreviated laundry list of goals:
| Posted in »
Barack Obama,
Democratic Platform,
Election 2008,
John McCain,
Paul Zannucci
Our favorite Democrat john turned conservative commentator, Dick Morris, has an article at Real Clear Politics extolling the political virtues of John McCain's call for offshore drilling. Pointing out, as I've said over and over, that such a call leaves Democrats in the uncomfortable position of being on the wrong side of the polling on an extremely important issue.
He also points out the fatal mistake by OPEC. By allowing it to come to this, they have doomed themselves. They have no product but oil, and now America is damned and determined to stop buying it from them. Not only that, we're determined to out-produce them and make oil obsolete all at the same time. So where are they going to get their money then? Well, there's always gum Arabic, I suppose, and maybe saffron--and, of course, lunatics. They have lots of those to export.
McCain Scores With Offshore Drilling Proposal
Yesterday John McCain continued to lay out an aggressive energy plan by calling for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. From the MyWay article we read:
McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.
"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."
It goes on to say that the longer term goal would be to add an additional 55 reactors.
For reasons only a Democrat could give, this country lags far behind the developed world in nuclear power, despite how clean and efficient nuclear energy is. I'm sure that baby Alex's mother is out there somewhere worried about a core meltdown or what is going to happen with all the waste, but all of these issues are nothing more than liberal talking points. Nuclear, today, is truly a safe option, and while we've heard of poorly stored waste, that, too, is an issue that is easily addressed.
Unfortunately, thanks to liberal stonewalling, even this will take some work, though. Much like we haven't found any new sources of oil or built any new refineries in ages, we haven't taken a serious look at nuclear technology in some time.
"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," (McCain) conceded.
Thanks, Democrats.
McCain's call for opening up offshore drilling has riled up the usual suspects. So far, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and the Socialist Party's nominee for President, Barack Obama, have all cried out against the measure.
From the Washington Post: "It's disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.
Actually, the failed energy policy that McCain is wanting to end is the one that has prevented offshore drilling for the last twenty-seven years. When this moratorium was first introduced, offshore drilling was a messy thing. Even when there weren't official spills, there were spills, and the fragile ecosystem off the coasts was under constant attack. That was twenty-seven years ago. Not only has the technology improved and become much cleaner, but we can now drill farther out to sea than ever before.
Again from the Washington Post: "John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.
Yet, in fact, President Bush has continued to renew the moratorium on offshore drilling. But apparently this misleading statement, which managed to throw in the Socialist Party's favorite words, "big oil", into the deceitful equation, didn't contain quite enough hyperbole for the man who would be the Party's leader. Obama managed to spit out, "Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut."
There's nothing like liberal dogma for giving me that warm and fuzzy feeling about the Republican candidate. Go, John McCain.
To read the story from the Washington Post, go here: McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling Ban
In a move that could potentially ease the burden of gas prices, reduce our dependence upon foreign oil, and ease our transition to renewable, alternate energy sources, John McCain will today announce that he is calling for the lifting of the federal moratorium for states that wish to permit exploration.
This is a have our cake and eat it, too, solution. Unfortunately, it's almost certain to be blocked by the Democrats.
When Iraq's foreign minister meets with a presidential candidate, he picks the one who understands foreign policy and the situation in Iraq. Thanks to the surge, America's goals of a free and democratic state for Iraq, one that doesn't support terrorism, are going to be met. Here, McCain talks about his meetings and how successful the surge, which Obama voted against, has been.
| Posted in »
Barack Obama,
Foreign Policy,
John McCain,
Judicial Nominations,
Paul Zannucci
Where do I stand? With the democratic primaries drawing to a conclusion (I think), the time draws near to make my decision. Even today I have on ongoing internal battle over voting for McCain. In my humble opinion he has spent way too much time in the middle compromising. I wish my dream of a true blue conservative would have come true but that is not the way the cookie crumbled. I am left mulling over a so called moderate maverick.
My choice will be to step in the booth and pull the lever for McCain. For me the most important consideration is Supreme Court nominations. Presidents come and go but the judges they choose last well beyond their administrations. Several of the current judges are in failing health and may retire soon. As a country we can not afford to have the highest court in the land take a further turn towards making law. We can not afford justices who believe the Constitution is a living document. We can not afford to have justices who are more than willing to overturn the “will of the people” to further a personal political agenda.
My friends we can not afford to elect Obama (or Clinton) for fear of their nominations. I can assure you any judge they set forward will absolutely support the radical left agenda. We will be staring down the face of having to accept homosexual marriages, radical gun control, limited speech, minority rules and on and on and on. I hope if nothing else this scares you to the booth to vote against a long standing push to the left. We must at all costs protect the Presidency until we have moved the Court back to a group of strict constitutionalists.
I realize that McCain is not many of our first (or even second) choice but we can not let that stand in our way. He is our candidate now and we must insure he is elected. The “religious right” must get off their duffs as they have in the last two elections and protect themselves. If a country allows moral decline they are only a step away from collapse. If the court moves any further to the left we will see the principles of the “Ten Commandments” upon which our laws are founded completely trampled under. I for one will not let this happen. I believe we still have a chance to turn this decline around and my vote against Obama is one of many steps I will take to stop the slide. God Bless America.
If the headline of this article made you, as they say, throw up just a little bit in the back of your throat, then you might be an old-fashioned Republican. You probably believe in partisan politics when the other side is clearly wrong. You might even be so far gone as to see compromising with a liberal as moving half-way in the wrong direction. Well, if this describes you, as it does me, we should be aware that we are as in vogue these days as short-shorts on men.
Yummy.
But this is not about your antiquated wardrobe or the carefully planned erosion of liberty. Nyet, comrade. This is about big ideas. This is about renegade politics. This is about holding hands and unity and butterfly kisses. Remember during the 2004 election how the media opined romantically about the possibility of a Kerry-McCain ticket? Certainly there was some history between the two men that made that a slight possibility, but that was hardly the only reason offered by the media for this same-sex union. McCain was a renegade. A man who flamboyantly flaunted his departures from party lines. He was a reasoned moderate, neither here nor there; not hot, not cold. He was the Dalai Lama of politics. Marrying these two men in unholy matrimony would have brought amazing unity to America, so the liberal pundits said. They would create an unstoppable ticket.
And does this not apply even more today? McCain is just as much a renegade, adopting a platform that is so similar to Obama's that it takes a team of kindergartners playing the "what's different" game to find where they diverge. And Hillary thinks of herself as the Meriwether Lewis of female politicians. That's two great renegades coming together in blissful political union. Plus, she has so many dedicated, disaffected followers that by joining up with McCain she would certainly unify the country and create a winning ticket for November.
Of course, there are downsides. Diehard conservatives all across America are already on suicide watch. And at least half of us would become instant hypocrites. So conditioned to be ashamed of our conservative ideas, we tend to lavish affection on any deserters to our cause. How else do you explain the tingly feeling so many get whenever Bernie Goldberg or Dick Morris get on television? That's right, many a conservative would suddenly feel compelled to adore Hillary Clinton.
And for those of us who could not manage that, we could at least console ourselves that there would be no Obama in the White House--and with complaining every time they moved Hillary to a safe location (kidding).
But we won't hear about the "dream ticket" from the media this time around because now McCain is the Republican nominee and the enemy. We've even had our first celebrity endorsement of leaving Earth if he becomes president. Even as good a story as this would make, it likely won't get put out there because most in the media are, first and foremost, committed to the liberal cause, and for the next few months there will be no room for anything but poking holes in McCain and lavishing Obama with old-fashioned free love. Come to think of it, go ahead and get out those short-shorts. We'll need them to be in style until after the election.
According to an AP story:
