OzarkGuru's blog

Bill Smith, Editor: Congressional Democrat leaders attending the DNC 2008 in Denver are attempting to transfer their failures to President Bush in an effort to distract voters by claiming their candidate is running against the Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush ticket. America is not stupid. Bush is retiring to Texas. And, Sen. John McCain as a maverick has never been part of the Bush team. It is true that Bush and McCain have conservative principles on which they agree. However, McCain as a maverick never placed party line first and often reached across the Senate isle to work with Democrats on critical issues. McCain has a leading democrat backing him and even the current identified Democratic vice president said positive things about McCain's qualifications to be president. Allegiances are shifting everywhere but with the Democratic leadership in Congress

While the candidates carry out their campaigns as they determine best, the Congressional Democrat leadership hides their failures behind George Bush. They are pursing a "con" job on the voters. They are working hard to sell their head-in-the-sand approach to energy policy to the American people. This may prove to be difficult with the divisions in their party who are deciding whether to continue following the inept Democrat leadership's refusal to produce more American energy. Some are tired of their leaders' ineptness and are considering joining with Republicans and sensible Democrats in support for policies like opening more areas to offshore drilling. ABC News reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is concerned that Democrats’ lack of action on a comprehensive energy solution could cost them politically. Abercrombie has joined with his GOP colleague Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania to urge a vote on an offshore drilling proposal.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is paying attention. Pelosi has not been bothered by these situations and has even advocated for Democrats with competitive races to lie and side with the Republicans because she can still stall and control things back in Congress. Though she’s been saying that drilling could be part of an energy package, she refuses to commit to a specific vote. Reuters reports, “She criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree. ‘I don’t think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about’. . .”

Non-leader Pelosi would rather deal in distractions than grasp the laws of supply and demand. She says that drilling is not in her DNA. She would do well to read today’s New York Times, which discusses the recent rapid increase in American natural gas production. The Times writes, “Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.”

Although doubtful, Democrats who understand how supply and demand work will be able to use their time in Denver to convince Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to that a “find more and use less” approach to energy is the best way to lower gas prices and provide more energy to America. Republicans have put forward a number of serious plans to do just that. It begs the question, when will the wiser more reasoned Democrats stop being lead by people who are disgracing their positions and hurting the American people? Also, noticeable is that five Democrat senators put themselves forward as qualified to be President of the United States and yet, not one of them would lead the effort to replace an inept Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid, democrat agents of "no" change!

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A Zogby poll released today depicts John McCain leading Barack Obama among likely voters by 46 to 41% which removes the prior month's seven-point advantage for Obama. Also, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll that gave Mr Obama a 12-point lead in June found that the McCain and Obama were statistically tied. RealClearPolitics average of polls has McCain trailing by less than 2% and in today's electoral college match up with no toss-up states has McCain winning the electoral votes for the first time (see image)

American voters will soon be focusing on the DNC 2008 in Denver and Obama's selection of his vice presidential running mate. McCain is expected to select his vice presidential running mate immediately after the DNC and American voters will then shift their focus to the RNC 2008 in St Paul. Therefore, we can expect the polls to flex a lot in the coming days. However, the current polling results may evidence that Americans have taken notice of Obama's significance lack of experience which calls into question his ability to address national and global issues. They may be admitting that novelty is not necessarily a better choice over proven experience.

Voters have noted McCain's ability to address critical issues and to take clear positions while having a willingness to adapt over time to changes in positions due to changing national or global needs. Most likely voters are sharing with pollsters that McCain would be the better choice for president of the United States for the next four years. Obviously, the candidates' choices of their vice presidential running mates will be critically evaluated by voters. But, vice presidents are NOT presidents but presidents in waiting. And, America has proven in the past its willingness to select someone other that a former vice president or even former president to be their next president of the United States.

Many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, did not like former president "give 'em hell" Harry Truman. However, they knew that Truman understood that he was responsible for the leadership of America and for making difficult decisions unthinkable to them. As Truman said, the "Buck Stops Here." He understood his leadership responsibility. Whereas, the recent words by Sen. Obama that some issues are "above his pay grade" evidences that he is not ready to lead with competence and convictions and may be easily swayed by politics and others when America needs a man of conviction. Hopefully, American is awakening from a period of game show electioneering picking the next "American Idol" to electing the best person to lead and protect America as the President of the Unites States.

Technorati Tags: Barack John McCain, Election 2008, polling, Zogby poll, Bill Smith, ARRA News Service

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.

Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.

Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.

And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans.

Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. . . . Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. . . .

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Glenn Thrush at the Politico has an interesting read about "7 Worrisome Signs for Obama." Since these are making the rounds today in the media, Below is very brief summary with additional notes by Stephen Maloney and myself:

" . . . His [Obama's] supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls -- with Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker showing a statistical dead heat."

The seven worrisome signs for Obama:
1. The role Obama's race will play in voters' decisions; "How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem." (Note: In the 2006 Senate race, Republican George Allen, who waged a terrible campaign, lost by only 9,000 vote to a "moderate" Democrat with a military background. Race is not an issue for a qualified candidate. But Obama's own words of allegiances to his African family, questionable issues concerning his prior Muslim education, and anti-white racist comments by Obama's associates and pastors may affect him with many voters. The issue isn't race but the "cling-ons" of numerous negative factors. America is ready for president of any race and for female president. However, America may not be ready for a person of color forced upon them when that person is definitely not qualified except for his age. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are still suffering from after-shock that a female with more qualifications was defeated by Obama primarily because of her last name.)

2. "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be over hyped"; Obama staffers look at the state as a 50-50 proposition, and his odds of winning may be less than that. [If Obama doesn't do very well in the DC suburbs, he will lose VA.)

3. "Michigan's in play for McCain"; the Democrats probably can't win without Michigan. There, "McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate." (Note: Michiganders would have much preferred Hillary Clinton as the candidate.)

4. Difficult times can engender fear among voters, and that could benefit McCain, who is more of a known quantity than Obama. (Note: Economics may not be McCain's strongest suit, but he has proven that he has an understanding of the concept. He knows high gas prices hurt the American people and our economy. But it also doesn't look like an Obama strength.)

5. McCain doesn't have to face the "Ross Perot factor" that helped Bill Clinton greatly in bringing down George H. W. Bush in 1992; Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states. (Note: However, the maverick conservative or libertarian who places his or her own interest above those of the country, may indeed sacrifice their vote in an effort to punish the other conservatives and Republicans for not agreeing 100% with their positions. They may be be a spoiler that advances socialism under Obama. These folks will not win in the long run and unlike Ross Perot helping to elect Bill Clinton with A Republican congress, those supporting Barr are willing to send Obama to the White House with a the Democrats in full control of Congress. Even a major libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul has recognized this danger and has tried to rechannel the efforts of his followers to more reasonable avenues of influence for the future.)

6. Obama is NOT a white Southerner with border-state strength, the only kind of a Democrat who has won the White House in the last 65 years (LBJ, Carter, and Clinton);

7. "Americans may WANT divided government"; as one Democratic strategist puts it, ". . . nobody wants a pair of Pelosis [Nancy and Barack] running things." (Note: not to leave out Reid as part of the socialist liberal trio: Reid, Pelosi & Obama. In addition with "No Will To Drill" America will faced with higher prices for not only gas but for the very basics: food, home/rent, utilities, etc. Transportation costs are going no where but up if this 'trio is in office" together.)

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey puts it this way: People "want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans." (Note: Many, including democrats, know that youth has never proven to be a prediction of success and McCain, a maverick in his own party, has reached across party lines his experienced career when doing so benefited the American people. Having served America most of his life, McCain not Obama should be the run away candidate. But, left leaning biased media continues to promote a younger glamor candidate with no almost no experience candidate over the candidate who is better prepared and qualified to confront the global military and economic dangers already on the horizon for the United States.) . . . [ 7 Worrisome Signs for Obama]

ARRA Editor: While Sen. Lieberman (D disguised as ID) prides himself as a maverick and is supporting Sen. John McCain (R) for President, Lieberman not only caucuses with the Democrats, he also gives them money. He recently made a second donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in what some see as a effort to assure of keeping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee intact, regardless of the outcome in November. In addition, Lieberman has been giving money through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC to various re-election campaigns for Democrat Senators.

Glenn Thrush at The Crypt reports:

After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation. “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly — with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party . . . More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.

Thus Lieberman’s schmear campaign. Lieberman’s Responsibility / Opportunity / Community PAC, has given the DSCC $30,000 since last year – in addition to doling out smaller donations to the New Mexico Democratic party and the re-election campaigns of Democratic centrists Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor.

Did you see the 230,000 Reasons? Money Talks: Lieberman in two years gave the DSCC $100,000 + $100,000 + $30,000 to elect or keep Democrats in power.

ARRA News Service -As often happens on Fridays, Charles Krauthammer has a devastating column. He skewers Democrats in Congress for their staunch opposition to producing more oil and for their weak arguments against doing so. Krauthammer writes:

“By an overwhelming margin of 2 to 1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the past 27 years. Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected? . . . The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that’s been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.” . . .

The problem for the Democrats is that the argument for ‘do everything’ is not rocket science. It is common sense. Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, surveying the political rubble resulting from her insistence on not even permitting drilling to come to a floor vote, has quietly told her members that they can save their skins and vote for drilling when the pre-election Congress convenes next month. Pelosi says she wants to save the planet. Apparently saving her speakership comes first.” . . . [Read Charles Krauthammer's No Will To Drill]

ARRA News Service - In the House, the Republican protest over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to allow a vote on drilling enters its second week today. The message is clearly having an impact, as Politico reports that “MoveOn.org announced Thursday it was launching radio ads targeting Republicans for organizing the protest.” MoveOn is apparently desperate to blunt the momentum for more drilling; a new Rasmussen poll that shows 57% of Democrats and 61% of independent voters see finding new energy sources as a priority. Rasmussen Reports also notes: “With energy issues taking center stage in the presidential campaign, 81% of Americans see development of new energy sources as an urgent priority. Only 9% disagree.”

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA: Barack Obama continues to show that he want to be not only the "one" but the "only one." He feels more comfortable with staged debates than rubbing shoulders with voters in a series of Lincoln-Douglas townhall debates with John McCain. On Saturday, Barack Obama backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of Lincoln-Douglas townhall debates. While Obama said he would welcome a series of townhall meetings with McCain, now that he, and not Mrs. Clinton, is the Democrat's presumptive candidate, he has flip-flopped his way out of his previous statement.

Obama had time to fly to Europe and to the Middle East to create false media image of his competency in meeting with heads of states. Did the first term Senator consider if his intrusion was proper protocol? He imposed himself on the leaders of other countries. Obviously, European or Middle East leaders were not willing to refuse meeting with a person who "might" be the next president of the United States. He does as he wishes in the hopes of impressing voters back in the U.S. Then he speaks at a rally in Germany to an alleged 200,000 Germans after two rock groups had played. He announces his presumptive status to be president of the World and skips visiting with wounded U.S. military in Germany.

Obama could do campaign stunts with leaders of the other countries who didn't even wish to see him, he could take time extolling a one world utopia at a German rally, and then does what no other U.S. Senator would do - he skips visiting with wounded troops. Fortunately, Europeans don't vote for America's president. Americans vote and it appears that the last persons Obama want to confront are the American voters in town hall meetings. Instead, Obama prefers the controlled debate formats before cameras that are structured to afford him the protection of a biased media.

Obama agreed to only participate in the standard three debates in the fall proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. In a letter to the commission, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones in the fall. "We've committed to the three debates on the table," campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an interview. "It's likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall." The first debate is set for Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., three weeks after the Republican National Convention concludes on Sept. 4. The other presidential debates are set for Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 and the vice presidential debate for Oct. 2.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, debate, John Mccain, Lincoln-Douglas, presidential debate, Townhall, ARRA News Service

ARRA News Service - I know that some of you don't like to read long, drawn-out missives...
so here's the Executive Summary:

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Election 2008, experience, John Mccain, presidential candidates, ARRA News Service

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I have obviously missed the boat in sharing certain ideals and beliefs with our readers. Although my final degree is in philosophy, I have not taken time to set forth in simple clear vignettes the philosophical beliefs or thoughts of great minds upon which our government was founded. Today, I begin to make amends but not in my words but in a summary of concepts by former great philosophers which have been set forth clearly by another - Publius. At Write Idea. Publius details The Philosophy Behind the Democracy we Know Today:

The American tradition is rich and vibrant. This is a short examination of the beliefs of some of the more popular philosophers.

Aristotle’s Three Forms of Government
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) stated that "The true forms of government…are those in which the one, or the few, or the many govern, with a view to the common interest:

1. A Monarchy. That is, a government a government run by one person.
2. An Aristocracy. Government by the few.
3. A Polity. We now call this a Constitutional Democracy.

However, to these three forms of good government, three forms of bad government correspond:

1. A Tyranny. That is, a monarchy ruled by an antagonistic monarch.
2. An Oligarchy. That is, a rule by a few corrupt men.
3. A Democracy. That is, rule by the masses.

Of the three deviations, tyranny is the worst, and mob rule is the least evil.

Plato’s Condemnation of Democracy
Plato (428-327 BC) argued against democracy. His primary reasons are summarized as follows:

1. Democracy leads inevitably to “mob rule.” Those in power pander to “pleasure-seekers” whose chief goals are the fulfillment of their immediate desires.
2. Democracy leads to rule by the stupid, who while they may have fine rhetorical (speaking) skills; they have no true knowledge itself.
3. Democracy leads to disagreement and conflict, which leads to the weakening of governments and should usually be avoided.

What about America
America is a Polity, or a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, as so many people believe. This is why in the pledge allegiance we pledge allegiance to the "republic."

Why Democracy?
Vox populi, vox Dei, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God.” As illustrated in the words of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, all men intrinsically have a conscience. He proclaimed, “Conscience, conscience! Divine instinct, immortal and celestial voice.” Similarly, Seneca wrote, “God is near of you, with you, in you. A sacred spirit has its seat in us. It is the observer and keeper of our good deeds and our wrongdoings.” This is the idea of conscience: it is divine.

In Western governments, law arises from the will of “the people.” The people know what to do because they listen to their conscience. Thus, the law is based, or should be based, on the conscience of the people. To put it simply:

• Men have consciences
• Men elect people who represent their conscience
• Elected officials rule according to their conscience

Conclusion
This is simply the tip of the iceberg. Read Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Hobbs. Government is an important institution. It can be used for good...or for evil.... [If you liked this summary, drop by Write Idea and leave Publius a comment.]

Technorati Tags: America, Aristotle, Arsenal of Democracy, Constitutional Republic, Oligarchy, philosopher, philosophy, Plato, Polity, Seneca, tyranny