If you've had a long-standing argument with your neighbor, and then you notice him putting up a fence that encroaches on your back yard, what's your first reaction? Knock it down or talk to him about it? Obama would talk; John McCain would knock it down and threaten to set his house on fire. Sarah Palin sounds as if she'd sit on the back porch with her AK-47 and shoot anyone who tried to rebuild it.
An article in the September 1 Newsweek contrasts Obama's and McCain's reactions to the Russian invasion of the South Ossetia region of the Republic of Georgia. The author disdainfully dismissed Obama's call for restraint on both sides and direct discussions. "It was left to McCain," he approvingly writes, "to call for immediate Russian withdrawal."
Careful readers of the situation know that the two invaded states are disputed territory, the borders are not precise, and that the Georgian government had rushed troops into the areas after encouragement from the Bush Administration. Russia's response was ruthless, far over the top, but the situation was not Hungary, 1956. Georgia was not entirely blameless. Obama's call for discussion was a recognition that, (1) American vital interests were not threatened and (2) there is virtually nothing the US could unilaterally do to cause Russia to back down.
John McCain, on the other hand, issued a demand that Russia immediately withdraw. Such empty threats and tough talk without the will nor the means to back it up is the worst sort of belligerent bluster, guaranteed to diminish our standing. No one, especially Russia, believes that the USA will go to war to save the Republic of Georgia. It's the sort of tough talk that got us into an ill-advised, poorly conducted nation-building exercise in Iraq and that is certain to lead to other wars with John McCain at the helm.
John McCain, wrong on energy?
For years, John McCain has repeatedly voted against any bill that included any form of subsidy for alternative energy, whether solar, wind or other. Extending tax breaks for oil producers, however, met with his approval. So, finally, did corn-based ethanol when supporting it was politically correct in the delegate-rich midwest farm belt. Now that it is clear to most people that alternative energy offers the best hope of independence from Middle East oil, and gas prices are at historic highs, he grudgingly admits to being in favor of "an all-of-the-above" approach, including, he says, nuclear and clean coal. However, he says, we must "drill, and drill NOW".
It is instructive that the only energy sources he actually names are oil, coal and nuclear, while throwing everything else into a dismissive all-of-the-above lump. It's also instructive that his first proposal is to drill for oil in the outer continental shelf to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil." The fact is, there is no such thing as "foreign oil" or "American oil"; there is only "oil". Prices are set on a handful of international commodities markets, and charged at the well-head, with a transportation adder. This means that 200,000 barrels per day produced off the California coast costs exactly the same to California refiners as it does to Chinese refiners, except for the relatively minor cost of transportation. Once loaded onto a tanker, that oil can just as easily go to Osaka as Los Angeles.
This also means that, unless Republicans propose forcing those companies that find offshore oil to sell it at a discount to American refiners, there will be virtually no effect upon prices nor availability in America. Tell me that anyone proposes nationalizing American oil companies and I'll look around for the folks bringing your very long-sleeved jacket that ties behind your back. Offshore drilling is a purely political red herring to try to shift blame for today's high gas prices onto Democrats who have supported alternative energy sources.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
But my main bone to pick with the Republicans is their Christian religious agenda. No..hold on...it's their utter disrespect for our laws and the Constitution. Hmmmm...maybe it's their arrogance and judgmental attitude. Maybe it's all of these things.
Now take the Democrats...those spineless, unorganized, Keystone cops of politics. Big taxes, big government, cancel the 2nd amendment, support everyone who won't work (Robin Hood visits Washington) Ooops. Can't stomach those guys either.
Ron Paul? Sure...he makes a lot of sense and if you really want some change...he must certainly be the man. Except...he thinks god should be president. President God...Vice President Paul...
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." Ron Paul
Bob Barr? Bob is a ultra conservative Republican through and through who is wearing the mask and disguise of a Libertarian.
What am I to do?
It wasn't big government that allowed hundreds of lending institutions to make home loans to people who had little chance of paying them back, then sell bundles of these worthless (sorry, "sub-prime") mortgages as AAA rated bonds, collecting fees but passing along the risk. It was the SMALL government policies that reduced regulation and oversight.
It was SMALL government policies, not big government, that cut funding for FDA inspectors so that lead painted toys and anti-freeze laced medicines from China were allowed into the US. You want safe medicines, untainted food, but you're going to leave it to "the self-correction of the free market" to give you those?
(What, we're all supposed to hire our OWN inspectors?)
The sub prime mortgage mess began years ago and was fueled by consumerism and over building. When the first dominoes fell...the rest followed.
But what did the Democratically controlled Congress do when this mess was foretasted? And we did see it coming a mile off. The Dems regained control of Congress in 2006 and what did they do? Nothing.
Please bear in mind...I am not defending the Republicans...but you need to consider Gary...it is not the size of our government that counts...it is the efficiency, and a big, unwieldy government only wastes more money than it effectively manages. Don't spend more...spend wisely.
We're not connecting here Gary. The size of the government and the size of federal agencies are different propositions. I'm talking about the number of agencies...the overlapping and redundancy...the inefficiencies. I'm talking about the bureaucratic quagmire of bumbling idiots that get paid to mismanage...waste our tax dollars and cover their own asses.
Check this out Gary...it's from the Washington Post.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html
"The federal government keeps getting bigger.
The Republican Party's oft-stated affinity for smaller government has not applied during the Bush administration. According to a recent study, not only is the number of federal civil servants on the rise, but so are the numbers of employees working for government-funded contractors and for organizations that receive government grants.
Roll all of those together -- and mix in the numbers of postal workers and military personnel on the federal payroll -- and the "true size" of the federal government stands at 14.6 million employees, said Paul C. Light, the study's author and a government professor at New York University.
That compares with 12.1 million employees in 2002, said Light, who has tracked the growth of government for years and has data for as far back as 1990."
Throw in all the state and local government workers and pretty soon half of the country will be receiving pay checks funded with tax dollars.
I take your point, but I've never heard anyone clamor to reduce any agency except the Dept of Education. When the speakers at the GOP convention railed against smaller government, it was just that - smaller government. They never said we need more efficient government, just smaller. Nobody says we need fewer air traffic controllers, fewer FBI agents.
Deregulation in the 1980s led to the many abuses by industry today. People saw this as bringing efficiency to government but deregulation did just the opposite. Many lives have been destroyed because of industry mismanagement.
As for deregulation, I agree with Joe...airlines and utilities have been an unmitigated disaster, the extent of which has not yet been fully appreciated. I have come to the conclusion that "essential" services cannot be turned over to "for profit" corporations. The temptation for profiteering at public expense is just too great.
Everyone can point to a government project of some kind that was done poorly or inefficiently. But the same can be said of any large corporation. I have worked for 3 and I have seen things get FUBAR in those. And there is usually no single person responsible, though sometimes sombody gets fired or transferred to a smaller job.
But how many major corporations in the past few years have been run into the ground by an executive board that leaves with tens of millions in severence pay? All of that money comes out of the shareholders' pockets. Isn't that a tax?
The problem is, shareholders don't organize so they don't have enough voting power at shareholder's meetings to control the executive ripoffs.