Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has some video of a Palin speech from Dover, New Hampshire yesterday. In terms of mood and spirit differences between the two parties, the video serves as a perfect example.
We believe, too, in the promise of this country, in the opportunities that we wish for ourselves and for each other, for our sons and for our daughters. We believe America is not the problem. We don’t have to apologize for being Americans!
Morrissey likens the optimism to Ronald Reagan.
I do think the quote captures what is different about the two candidates at the moment. McCain wants minor changes to prevent another banking crisis but for the most part trusts in the American economy; Obama wants to enact the New Deal II. McCain wants to be cautious about using military force but respects and honors those that serve in the military; Obama says hawkish things like "we will get Osama Bid Laden at any cost" but has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for people who choose a military career. McCain is proud to serve his country; Obama (and Michele) think we are setting a horrible example and want to reshape us in the model of Europe.
The political landscape may make it impossible for McCain to prevail in this election. But the most disappointing thing is that the press will take even a 50.1% to 49.9% Obama victory as a mandate to trash America as it is now. And many of us just don't agree with that.
By now I'm sure you heard about Joe the Plumber. While stumping in Ohio, Obama was asked by a Cleveland resident about his new tax plan. As the story goes, Joe was planning on expanding his plumbing business and was going to go over the mystical $250,000 mark. He asked Obama why he wanted to raise his taxes, to which Obama replied, "It is time to spread the wealth around." Since then the news has been dominated by Joe the Plumber. He was mentioned prominently by Joe McCain during the debate and even got to give his own post-debate analysis.And he featured in a new ad by McCain. Today, Sarah Palin mentioned him while campaigning. Joe Biden mentioned him while campaigning.
The reason for all the press is that the event--not Joe--struck a chord with a lot of people. People who don't support Obama for his economic policies worry about how far to the left he is, even in his own party. They don't like the idea of redistribution of wealth. They don't like the idea a welfare state. Which is why normally Obama is much more crafty than this. He doesn't call it welfare, he calls it tax cuts--when in fact they aren't cuts at all, but handouts.
James Pethokoukis at US News and World Report writes in an article entitled "Did Barack 'Spread the Wealth' Obama Just Blow the Election?":
No. Really. You're kidding me. Barack Obama actually told that Joe the Plumber guy that he wants to "spread the wealth around." What, did Obama just get done reading the Wikipedia entry on Huey "Share the Wealth" Long or something? Was he somehow channeling that left-wing populist from the Depression? Talk about playing into the most extreme stereotype of your party, that it is infested with socialists.
Pethokoukis notes this finding from a Gallup poll this summer:
When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
So what are the Democrats trying to do in response? They are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber. Toledo is investigating his (lack of) a proper plumbing license. He is being attacked from all sides. DailyKos published his home address so people could harass him.
The Anchoress understands why the left is so upset over Joe the Plumber:
Those words are what matters. It does not matter whether Obama said them to Joe the Plumber or Booby McBoobadoob. Don’t allow yourself to become distracted by the media swarm/feed. Stay focused on Obama’s words. THOSE are what matters.
This is why attacking the actual Joe doesn't matter. In a monumental slip, Obama showed his far left economic underpinnings. That doesn't mesh with the views of many, many Americans.
And he isn't learning. Today he, too, was talking about Joe the Plumber.
“He’s trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” Obama said. “How many plumbers you know that are making a quarter-million dollars a year?”
For God's sake, that is the point, Mr. Obama. America is a place where you start out as a simple plumber--or electrician or carpenter. Maybe one day you start your own business. The next you hire a few more employees. The thought that when you have a few more employees and have continued success that the government would swoop in an "share the wealth" with others is abhorrent. And frightening. It's not like a company making $250,000 a year now pays no taxes--it pays a fair share.
It is the simple thought that "sharing the wealth" is a good or just idea that I, and hopefully a majority of Americans, reject utterly.
Just a few months ago, people were warning of $400 a barrel for oil. (I recall that CNN had a fear-inducing headline one day on this topic, but I'm unable to find the reference.) Earlier, people also quoted the same number and declared that the world was out of oil and that the price would never go down.
Crude oil fell below $70 a barrel to the lowest since June 2007 and gasoline tumbled after a U.S. government report showed stockpiles increased more than twice as much as forecast.
Supplies rose 5.6 million barrels to 308.2 million barrels last week, the Department of Energy said in a weekly report. Oil also fell on doubts that the bank rescue plan will bolster global economic growth and fuel use. OPEC brought forward its planned meeting from next month to Oct. 24 after the oil price drop.
I posted previously on how Venezuela and Iran would suffer economic consequences if oil dropped below $75 a barrel. One can only hope.
How low will oil go? Not much lower, if OPEC can help it.
OPEC will likely cut oil output by 1 million barrels a day at next week's meeting to check the drop in prices, Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said.
"It will be one million, or more," he told Qatar's al- Jazeera television channel. "Prices have fallen a lot and we need to take measures."
It will be interesting to see how much pressure OPEC is willing to risk on a delicate world economy. On one hand, they want to milk the rest of the world for as much money as possible for the oil they have left. On the other hand, driving prices north of $100 has two consequences. One, It hurts economic productivity, which lowers the demand for oil. Two, it drives nations to develop alternative energy sources with a high priority--something OPEC desperately doesn't want to see happen.
It's about time. Yahoo! News reports that the FBI is investigating ACORN in relation to voter registration fraud.
The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.
A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.
The important thing to note here is that the investigation is 'national'. Conducted by the FBI, it can't be railroaded to the side as would be done by Democratic Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner.
I doubt anything will come of this investigation before the election. Would a President Obama act on findings of illegal activities or would he protect ACORN as he is done in the past?
I think the bigger story coming out of the debate is Joe the Plumber. That story has the possibility to resonate with the working class in America. More thoughts on that later...
I haven't been posting much on polls lately. Why? Because I don't understand polling this election cycle. Here are two examples.
In the past, on polls far before the election, polling agencies used registered voters (RV) as a way to weight their samples. This was standard practice as it was hard to determine what socioeconomic and political groups would be more motivated by election time. Also, traditionally, polling agencies would switch to likely voters (LV) closer to an election. This correction helps to make more accurate predictions near the end of a campaign.
This year, the polling agencies are not switching to LV. Gallup continues to call the race a done deal for Obama, but they are still reporting RV numbers. Hugh Hewitt has the latest results from Gallup.
Notice the RV spread is 7% but the LV spread is 3%--within typical margin of error. They've even refused to drop their bias and come up with a different LV number. They are basically saying, history tells us one thing but we know in our heart of hearts that this year will be different. That isn't professional behavior from a polling agency.
And remember--it's the 7% number that will make the front page of CNN and MSNBC. The message is clear. The election is over, McCain can't win, don't even bother to vote conservatives.
As a second example, the leading CNN article is currently about how McCain is going to lose five traditional red states to Obama. Specifically in Virginia, they note:
A new CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation survey in Virginia released Wednesday indicates that Sen. Barack Obama holds a 10-point lead over McCain -- 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters.
This one is even likely voters. But what about the internals of such polls. DJ Drummond has an interesting post at Wizbang. He is discussing SUSA polls, not Gallup, but notice the data on Virginia:
Virginia 2004 DRI split was 35%/39%/26%, 2006 DRI split was 36%/39%/26% SUSA in 2008 is using 39%/30%/25%
You are reading that correctly. In 2004 and 2006 (a horrible year for Rebublicans), 39% of voters in Virginia were Republicans. SUSA is assuming that this year, only 30% of voters will be Republicans. They have no statistical evidence for this--they are just saying it is so.
If I were to walk into a Berkeley cafe and ask about political preferences I would get a different result than if I walked into an NRA meeting in West Virginia. The pollsters are effectively doing the former and publishing the results as if it were a national opinion.
I'm still doubtful of a McCain victory in three weeks. But how much of this doubt stems from a constant, sustained effort by media and pollsters to make me believe that the race is over and I should just give up already?
The following article is not surprising coming from CNN--that doesn't make it any less infuriating. We've been told by months by CNN that the only reason a white person wouldn't support Obama is due to racism. If Obama looses the election, it is because those rednecks are all racists.
So now we learn that African-Americans are enthusiastic for Obama, which could make the difference in the election.
"I know he is going to win," James said after services at Leonard Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis. "See, God answers prayers, and I am a praying man, and I know he is going to win."
I'm glad that has been spelled out for me. If a white person supports a white candidate over a black one, they are racists. If a black person supports a black candidate over a white one, they are enthusiastic.
I feel better having be educated in this regard. Thank you, CNN.
I was going to make a long and detailed post on what McCain and Obama need to do tonight during the third and final presidential debate. While doing a little background research, I see that Ed Morrissey has already written my post for me. The short summary is as follows.
McCain needs to:
Be aggressive
Attack Obama on ideas of government interference in the economy
Find a way to talk about gun control and abortion
Bring up foreign policy
Obama needs to:
Maintain poise
Don't stutter
Stick to domestic policy
Talk in general themes
Gee, I wonder which one will prevail? Is it easier to fight the debate moderate and bring up topics the moderator refuses to bring up or to stand there and act presidential?
In an odd twist, Obama seems to have accidentally released his debate talking points to the press. A real mistake or a planned leak? You decide.
This is a good time to announce that I won't be watching the third debate. I'm going to post, after the fact, just based on reactions I read. The reason for this approach is that my opinion is of little consequence. I've already made up my mind, I'm voting for McCain, and my biased reaction to the debate wouldn't tell you much, if anything. But it is imperative that McCain make some impact tonight and that is what I'll be looking for in post-debate reactions.
Ann Althouse has recently thrown aside her vow of cruel neutrality and stated, with 89% probability, that she is voting for Obama. Althouse has always been accomplished at stirring things up (it is one of the reasons I check her blog regularly) and this case is no exception.
But she wrote something recently I flat out disagree with and had to make a note of it. She quote the following from a Wall Street Journal article about Obama and ACORN.
The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from Acorn, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.
And she had this to say in response:
So Obama uses things/people to the extent that they are useful. Don't you want a pragmatist President?
Pragmatic? Try at best disingenuous and at worst manipulative and deceitful. Yes Obama uses people to the extent they are useful. One such group of people might be middle-class voters. Use them for their votes and then, once elected, disregard their well-being and enact policies that he favors for ideological reasons.
Ann tempers her response with:
I mean... if he's duly elected. Election fraud should be ferreted out. Is there time to do that? If Obama wins, but not by a wide margin, and the accusations of fraud are big enough to put the outcome in question, it will tear us apart.
While her acknowledgment that election fraud is bad is a sign of sanity, it makes me think of a more general question.
Do you want an honest President? Or do you want an effective politician whose words have no more permanency than the political climate of the moment?
I know my answer. In three weeks, it appears that a majority of Americans are going to disagree with me.
The AP reports that a federal court of appeals has ruled that the state of Ohio must verify the eligibility of voters. This is in direct contrast to the wishes of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
A federal appeals court ordered Ohio's top elections official to set up a system by Friday to verify the eligibility of newly registered voters and make the information available to the state's 88 county election boards.
The full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must use other government records to check thousands of new voters for registration fraud.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had disagreed last week. The full court's ruling, in which nine of 16 judges concurred, overturns that decision.
This is good news after some bad. The circuit court panel having sided with Brunner was worrisome. Thankfully it seems the correct decision was made in the end. The blunt analysis at the Hedgehog Report:
Here’s a thumbnail view of the law, what happened and what will happen. The federal law is that while voter registration laws are eased and people have all sorts of places to register and the federal government will provide loads of money for registration efforts and equipment for voting there is one proviso. States must verify new registrations against either a National data base or state data bases to verify someone exists. Ohio, under the democrat secretary of state, took a simple approach and that was “we are too incompetent to do this”. (the quotes are mine and for that matter so is the quote, but that’s the qist of what she said). Frankly she choose not to do it and then claimed she did not have time to do this close to the election.
Well the Court of appeals ruled otherwise and now before registration cards or mailed out or voters are allowed to vote new voters must be matched against the state or federal data base. Frankly not carrying out a law is like an impeachable offense in my opinion.
While I'm happy this is the outcome, consider that we, as a nation, are even having this discussion. In what reality is purposely allowing thousands of fraudulent votes decide the next President fair and equitable?
I promise to get to topics today that aren't related to ACORN, but it is an important issue and one that fuels my desire to blog and give an alternative view than that of the mainstream media. CNN covers the Obama-ACORN relationship here. (Hat tip: Instapundit.) The point here is not so much what CNN said in the report. It's just the simple fact that they are covering the story. Why are they covering it? My personal thought is they feel that the election is locked up for Obama and they can afford a few reports like this to make themselves appear more balanced. If people scream about media bias after Obama is elected, they can point to stories like this and say "See? We were critical." A total farce of course considering how long they have done nothing but be an arm of his campaign.
That said, it was on CNN so maybe it influenced a few people.
Update: Another CNN piece on ACORN. This time concerning thousands of fraudulent registrations in Philadelphia. Note the following exchange:
CHETRY: Yeah, and in its defense, ACORN has said it is actually identifying these problematic registrations in advance and trying to notify authorities. In Philadelphia, ACORN said it flagged, I guess, 5,000 applications before the officials found them. Is that true?
GRIFFIN: Not according to the city officials, not true. They say that ACORN came in with a bundle of 1,100 that they thought were suspect. Actually, it turned out a couple of hundred of them were actually good voter registration cards that they processed and sent voter cards out to. So, there are a lot of disparities between the number that ACORN is getting and what city officials checking the actual records are getting, and that number, Kiran, is only going to grow as they continue to process more of these for this election.
I'm happy to see this story continue to gain momentum. Enough to make a difference in the election? I'm not sure but every little bit helps.
Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer.
Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN.
They claim it wasn't one of their applications, despite the presence of an ACORN stamp. Jennifer Ruben wonders why Obama hasn't been grilled on his ACORN connections:
It is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama should not have been grilled on this –either by his opponent or the media. (The latter is just beginning to cover the story.) Obama’s ties are deep and extensive with an organization that embraces goals and tactics well outside the political mainstream and that has engaged in a pattern of illegal activity usually seen only in RICO indictments. ACORN’s present involvement in coast-to-coast fraud is jaw-dropping and should raise the issue as to whether an Obama Justice Department would vigorously investigate and, if warranted, prosecute this entity and all involved.(A helpful compilation of ACORN’s suspect activities is here.) Put simply, Obama worked for and helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a fraud-infested, corrupt organization and has yet to explain himself, let alone apologize for the same.
She links, above, to the GayPatriot's list of current ACORN-related investigations. You can find a similar list at Gateway Pundit. They also have an interesting post on how ACORN is specifically canvasing for Obama.
But remember, ACORN swears it is a nonpartisan organization.Do you have any hope this will negatively impact Obama. I think it will--after he is elected President. Until then, even bringing up the idea that ACORN is corrupt and that Obama gives his consent will be decried as racist.
CNN Reports on more ACORN voter registration fraud in Indiana. How bad is it? Check this quote:
So get this. They turn in 5000 new voter registration forms in Indiana, election officials start checking them and give up after the first 2100 were found to be fraudulent.
Props to CNN for actually reporting this.
I really think Obama is vulnerable on this. For ACORN to continue just shows a level of arrogance that is astounding. Will McCain take the opportunity or not, that is the question.
Every time Obama has declared that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, it has made me wonder. This seems so unlike Obama. His voting record certainly suggests he is not a fan of cutting taxes. So what's the real story? The Wall Street Journal digs a little deeper.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
The article then goes on to list a number of "tax credits" that Obama plans to give to people. So what's the catch?
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The main point here is that Obama is politician--and a good one. He says one thing but plans something entirely different. That just leave the question that concludes the WSJ article:
One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
I, for one, would like him to at least raise the point in the remaining weeks of the campaign.
As I've noted recently, the current meme in the media is that McCain supporters are angry. I suppose this is to make you think that McCain is somehow unfit to be President because of this. Ironic, isn't it, that one of the negatives on McCain earlier was that he couldn't control his temper. Now his supporters think he is being to nice to Obama. How times change...
This post is really to get you thinking about politics and how hate and anger play a role. Consider the following two very long, very thought-provoking posts.
The first starts with an email from a reader to Instapundit. This reader is angry about the unfairness of the election process and is going to take it out on Obama. To quote him:
This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.
Glenn finds this attitude troubling. He says:
I understand where he's coming from, but . . . . Well, it makes me sad to think that this is where we are. Personally, if Obama's elected I intend to give him a chance and weigh him on his actions, not his party. But I agree that he's not likely to get much of a honeymoon -- except from the press, which has been giving him one for about a year already.
I find this discussion fascinating. For eight years, the left has push the image of Bush as the intellectual equivalent of a lemur monkey. They have been disrespectful beyond description. You can almost see the hate boiling inside them when they talk about George Bush.
How then should the right respond to an Obama presidency? My first reaction--and hopefully yours--is to take the high road. Respect the office if you can't respect the person holding it. Judge Obama on his actions, as Glenn suggest, not on your fears.
That said I can already see I will find it difficult to do so. I don't like Obama's past. I don't like that someone with his background gets to be President of the United States. I have to force myself to be calm about it and to realize I don't approve of every past President either. This will just be one more.
What makes it so difficult is the level of hate and anger that brews on the left--this is the subject of the second post I will link. Michelle Malkin has catalogued some of the more outrageous examples of hate against McCain and Palin. As an example, here's artwork calling Palin a MILP--a Mother I'd like to Punch.
Or this:
And this:
What level of self-restraint does it take for people that support McCain and Palin not to mock and attack Obama in the same way? Would you blame someone if they used the same tactics?
In the end I agree with Glenn at Instapundit. How sad we have sunk to this level of national "discourse". But read both of the posts I linked here and come to your own conclusions.
When Ed Morrissey use to author his own blog (the Captain's Quarters) I was an avid reader. I'm a little disappointed he moved to Hot Air. While Hot Air can be a source of useful information, it also can be a little shrill.
But he has a post today that is a must read. He has a video from 1998 of Andrew Cuomo, Housing and Urban Development Secretary under Clinton. Here's the transcript:
CUOMO:To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.
Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?
CUOMO:They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.
Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?
CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.
CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio...
Morrissey adds:
Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster. Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market.
Now, if you bring this argument up to an Obama supporter, they will argue that these mortgages make up a small fraction of the total mortgages. So while they did contribute to the problem, they can't be blamed for the entire collapse. This is true. Morrissey covers that topic as well:
That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse. However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem. When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans. Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.
And there in lies the real problem. Everybody--OK, most people--want to own a house; not everyone can afford one. When you make it possible for people that ordinarily wouldn't qualify for a loan to be able to do so, two things happen:
You take on a greater risk for these loans, which is exactly what happened.
You increase the competition for houses. People who would qualify without this government meddling suddenly find themselves competing with offers from people that needed the questionable loans to participate. This drives house prices up and as we all know economic bubbles are destined to burst.
Morrissey concludes:
The Democrats decided, as Michelle says, that mortgages were a civil right, and wouldn’t cost the American taxpayers a dime. How well is that working out, America? And now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this: Do you want the nation’s economic policies run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank for the next two years?
Unfortunately it looks like we are going to have them at the helm, regardless of how much we want or don't want it.
I've given this advice an number of times now. But this is such an interesting example it seemed appropriate to mention it again.
One of the biggest ways to detect biased polling is to watch the actions of the candidates. If polls suggest a state is definitely going one way or the other, yet both candidates continue to dump resources in to the state, you can be sure that their internal numbers say the state is close. Remember, most polling companies are paid to do their polling and as such, they bend their results to make the person footing the bill happy. The internal polling that a campaign pays for is specifically directed to be more accurate and less biased. We never see those numbers publicly as both sides are trying to influence your behavior and enthusiasm with biased polling.
Today McCain appeared in Iowa and is opening up more offices there. This is somewhat surprising. Check that, this is very surprising as national polling suggests that Iowa is going to go heavily towards Obama. The Real Clear Politics spread has Obama +11.8 in Iowa.
The explanation as to why the traditionally red Iowa is blue this year is simple--corn subsidies. Obama supports corn subsidies, McCain does not. Given how much corn Iowa produces this is enough to push Iowa in his favor. Or so the common wisdom says.
But if that is true, why is McCain in Iowa? Why is his campaign opening offices there? They must have internal numbers that suggest something far different than the public polls.
Just how far off is public opinion polling this year?
The title is of course sarcastic. Glenn linked to a blogger post on this topic a while back but I resisted the urge to comment on it. Now that CNN/Time has entered the foray, I feel compelled to post.
Yes gas prices are indeed falling. Oil dropped to below $83 a barrel and gas prices are down significantly across the country. You might think this is a ray of good news in a blinding darkness of economic horror stories. Some would disagree this is good news.
First up, Instapundit's links to this blog post at "gas 2.0" blog.
As of this writing, Gasoline in Denmark is about $9.00 a gallon, compared to $3.65 in the United States. (Up from $2.50 a year ago and down from $4.50 two months ago.) It seems like $9.00 a gallon gas in Denmark would decimate it’s economy right? Since 1981, there economy has grown 70 percent while energy consumption has been flat. In 1973, Denmark got 99 percent of it’s energy from the Middle East. Today, it gets zero.
We’ve become spoiled in the United States. We have grown up thinking that the oil that runs everything from our cars to our industrial complex, is cheap, inexhaustible and politically neutral. But we have come to an age where we realize that oil is in short supply, expensive, environmentally damaging and a political nightmare.
So oil is expensive now. But the author is complaining that it is NOT expensive. He suggests we tax gas heavily:
I say it’s time to raise the price of Gasoline in this country. It’s time to drive this economy toward a sustainable energy program that will benefit our economy, our lives and our environment.
Yes, that is what we need. Financial markets are in a meltdown and we need to raise taxes on things people can't afford to live without. That's a fantastic idea.
I didn't think much of these ramblings until today, when CNN linked to this Time article that has the same sentiment.
For oil-rich countries the slump has come at a bad time. As the oil price began rising during the past few years, governments and big oil companies plowed billions into exploring and developing new fields in Russia, Angola, Mexico, Brazil and Saudi Arabia — projects whose costs have more than doubled in the past few years, in part because soaring steel prices drove up drilling equipment costs and oil-rig rentals. Just as global demand has begun to slow, millions more barrels of oil a day from new fields have hit the world market.
I feed deeply sorry for the oil-rich countries. They certainly haven't made a economic killing milking their resource for all it is worth. To think Saudi Arabian princes might only be able to buy a Rolls Royce a month instead of a week. The horror!
It gets worse:
For some countries there is a fear far greater than an economic recession: political turmoil. Iran, which earns 80% of its revenues from oil exports, set this year's budget on the assumption that oil would trade at $90 a barrel — a figure which seemed conservatively low until recently, but which is now above the world price. "If the price stays there a while Iran would cut spending," Priddy says. That might include cutting heavy gas subsidies for Iranian drivers, who have rioted in the past when the government tried to ration gas or raise the price at the pump. Hugo Chavez could face similar problems in Venezuela if oil prices drop below $75 a barrel — the rate at which the country calculated this year's budget. The problems lower prices could cause in those countries could be more visceral than those posed so far by the current financial upheaval.
Iran might have to cut spending? Chavez's "master plan" might unravel? Isn't this the best news you've heard all day? Chavez cheered as Wall Street crashed--proof in his warped mind that capitalism had failed. I happily await the chaos in his own country that he deserves.
The new meme from the media is how McCain supports are getting angry. The front page story on CNN with the provocative title of "Rage rising on the McCain campaign trail" says this:
With recent polls showing Sen. Barack Obama's lead increasing nationwide and in several GOP-leaning states, some Republicans attending John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign rallies are showing a new emotion: rage.
Oh dear. Those Republicans are sore losers aren't they? I mean it is clear they've already lost.
Please. Note the following difference in news coverage (hat tip Gateway Pundit).
Jodie Evans is one of the top Obama Bundlers and has raised nearly $100,000 for her candidate. She last met with Obama in June.
Code Pink co-founders Jodie Evans (left) and Medea Benjamin try to storm the stage on Governor Sarah Palin at the RNC in St. Paul. (S&L)
So... How did the liberal media report this news that a top Obama and Democratic financier was crashing the stage during Sarah Palin's much anticipated speech?
NOT ONE WORD. There was not a peep from the media that the radical storming the stage was one of Barack Obama's top supporters.
Versus the following:
In contrast... This week when a rare McCain-Palin "supporter" screamed something foul at a rally against Barack Obama the media has been all over it.
The "angry Republican" story has made headlines all week.
Rick Moran defined this as the "Angry Mob" meme.
Gateway Pundit goes on to suggest that some of the "angry mob" showing up at Republican rallies are in fact people far on the left being planted to make the mob appear angry.
I don't know if such allegations are true, but their analysis of media behavior is spot on.
The big news last night was the release of the Troopergate/Tasergate reports. The basic summary of the finding is the Sarah Palin "abused power" but did nothing illegal. My opinion, this is started as a way to damage McCain-Palin and it ended that way. Remember what the lead investigator French promised:
Coghill wrote in the letter that French was quoted in media reports that the results of the probe were going to be an "October surprise" that is "likely to be damaging to the administration." The comments lead Coghill to believe the investigation is lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process, he wrote.
French is one of the 20%'ers in Alaska who does not approve of Governor Sarah Palin. He also is a staunch Obama supporter:
...
Hollis French (fifth from left) and fellow Troopergate hack Kim Elton (on left with beard), who has donated to the Obama Campaign, sit on the panel investigating popular governor Sarah Palin.
But what will the repercussions be? Sadly I think Powerline gets it right:
In the end, it seems to me that Gov. Palin did not exercise particularly good judgment in this matter. But the case that she abused her power by violating the ethics statute and/or that she fired the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't act against Wooten has not been made.
Nonetheless, the weakly reasoned "Troopergate" report may well represent another nail in the McCain-Palin coffin.
Given the fairness of the playing field this election, that analysis is spot on.
