THIRD EVENING POST:  AUGUST 4,  2008

Posted at 10:15 p.m. ET

KEEP IT GOING!

Investor's Business Daily weighs in on the GOP revolt in the House over oil drilling.  The key question:  Will the Republicans keep this going, or succumb to their traditional death wish?  The revolt is one of the best things the Republicans have done in years, and it highlights an issue they can own, if they move quickly and sharply, and if the McCain headquarters group is awake:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have sent the House of Representatives on a five-week vacation, but Republicans have decided to remain in the sweltering Washington, D.C., heat, take to the in-recess House floor and demand that Congress be called back so that Americans can get some relief from high gas prices.

Even The New York Times might be forced to notice.

Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership will not give them a roll call on drilling because she knows what doing so would mean: Enough Democrats would vote with the Republicans to pass legislation opening up offshore areas for oil drilling and to allow access to oil shale in Western states...

...Republicans have as an advantage the majority of the American public in support of drilling. Last month, an IBD/TIPP Poll found a broad-based 64% favoring offshore drilling, while 65% want our domestic oil shale made use of. A June Zogby poll found that a 74% majority of Americans in favor of offshore drilling.

The speaker has other priorities:

During the House floor protest, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., taunted Pelosi about conducting a tour to promote her new book while gas consumers suffer. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, read a letter from a family in his state that "can't afford to both go on vacation and send their son to Boy Scout camp." And so if they can't afford to go on vacation "then neither should Pelosi and the Congress!"

These GOP revolutionaries are the ones we've been waiting for.

John McCain and congressional Republicans have the opportunity to expose both Obama and Pelosi as enviro-extremists who refuse to let Americans use the treasure trove of oil that lies beneath our own soil, arctic ice and waters. Whether they take avail of that opportunity could determine both our economic and national security for years to come.

That is exactly right.  Drive it home.  Go negative if you have to, but get that message across.

August 4, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND EVENING POST:  AUGUST 4,  2008

Posted at 8:35 p.m. ET

BUBBA SPEAKS

Bill Clinton, who knows the meaning of words, even the word "is," apparently has trouble with the word "endorse."  The New York Daily News reports that the former president does verbal handstands to avoid a full-throated endorsement of Barack Obama:

Bill Clinton regrets some things he said - and didn't say - on the campaign trail. But one thing he still can't bring himself to utter: Barack Obama is ready to be President.

"You can argue that nobody is ready to be President, the former President told ABC.

"I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year," Clinton said from Rwanda. "You can argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can be fully ready for the pressures of the office."

That's probably not what the Obama campaign wanted to hear from the former commander in chief, whose role in Obama's election push and at the Democratic National Convention remains to be worked out.

Worked out, as in "get out."  You sense the continued resentment.  And there are still those stories out there of Hillary diehards who hope Obama collapses and that they dan still have their dream at the convention.

Bubba did have some praise for Obama, a man he and the Clinton campaign trashed relentlessly during the primaries as an empty suit whose rhetoric didn't live up to his actions.

"His strategic sense and his ability to run an effective campaign - he clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them which is a very important part of being President," Clinton said, sounding a new note on Obama.

"And he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn," he added.

Sounds like a letter of recommendation for a kid applying to Princeton.

Clinton, who was captured on video in more than one finger-waving outburst of rage in the campaign, insisted he's not angry at Obama, although he admitted each side hit the other pretty hard.

"I never was mad at Sen. Obama," Bubba said. "I think everybody's got a right to run for President who qualifies under the Constitution. And I'd be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition."

What ringing support.  What an endorsement!  Why, I'll go to bed tonight confident of my country's future if Barack Obama is elected.  Not.

Augut 4, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING POST:  AUGUST 4,  2008

Posted at 7:30 p.m. ET

AND AGAIN...

At times I become weary from writing it:  Barack Obama has shifted his stand on still one more issue.  (For those of you who keep score, the last shift occurred on maintaing the NASA budget.  Previously he'd said he wouldn't.  Now he says he will.)

The Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports:

LANSING, Mich. – Barack Obama called today for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide short-term relief from rising gasoline prices, marking the second time in a week that the Democrat has shifted positions on an energy issue.

His proposal to release 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile – a concept he rejected one month ago – follows his decision last week to support some offshore drilling if it was part of a comprehensive energy bill. The doubling of gas prices over the last year constitute a “crisis,” aides said, prompting Obama to reconsider his position on the oil reserve.

But similar to the caveat he issued when he reversed course on drilling, Obama said no single step, including drawing on the oil reserve, would reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil in the long term.

Well, of course that caveat explains everything.  True intellectuals of the left will understand him.  Those critics on the right, deeply flawed and shallow of thought, will not. 

Tapping the oil reserve was just one piece of a broad package that Obama said would reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil over 10 years, spending $150 billion on a mix of subsidies for business and consumers to encourage a “clean energy” future. The plans include a $7,000 tax credit to drivers who buy advanced-technology vehicles and $4 billion in direct assistance to Detroit automakers to help them build hybrid vehicles in the U.S.

Sounds a bit like standard leftist programs.  Let's subsidize an unimaginative, hidebound industry.  But we'll listen and study.

You have to ask serious questions about a man who changes his positions on things every five minutes.  Does he have any real ideas?  Has he ever thought anything through?  Has he progressed beyond the sixties? 

About his shift on the oil reserve:

The reserve “is there for a purpose: to help Americans in times of crisis,” a policy paper released by the campaign states. “Barack Obama believes the doubling of oil prices in the last year is a crisis for millions of Americans and the transfer of wealth to oil producing countries, many of them hostile to our interests, is a threat to our national security.”

A month ago in St. Louis, Mo., Obama said it was not time to tap the strategic oil reserve, saying it should be used in a “genuine emergency.” He cited, as an example, a terrorist attack on a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia and “you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken … out of the world market.”

Spokeswoman Jen Psaki disagreed Monday with the characterization that Obama had shifted his position, saying the senator has been “consistent about his belief that the president should retain his discretionary authority to conduct exchanges or swaps” as warranted by circumstances.

So he hadn't noticed the doubling of oil prices a month ago?  He didn't consider it an emergency a month ago?  Is this the man running on the mantra of "judgment"?  Where is it?

The three main components of Obama’s plan are:

— Get one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
— Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

“If I am president, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal — in 10 years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela,” Obama said.

Be very careful about "plans" that don't take into account the growth of the American population and increased longevity and need for energy created by medical science.  Any of these "planners" crank those in?  Why do I hear silence.

August 4, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  AUGUST 4, 2008

Posted at 1:45 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Well, the euphoria didn't last long.  The Gallup tracker just out contradicts Rasmussen.  As we reported earlier, Rasmussen has McCain up one, the first time McCain has led since Obama clinched the Dem nomination on June 3rd.

But Gallup has Obama up three, a two-point jump since yesterday.

One point to note:  Gallup polls registered voters, Rasmussen surveys likely voters.  Given Obama's historic tendency to poll better than he delivers, I'd be more comfortable with Ras, but that is speculation. 

The point, of course, is that, in a Democratic year, Obama's polling numbers aren't convincing.  One of our readers suggested that the Democratic delegates to their upcoming convention could stage a revolt and nominate Clinton, but I think Obama would have to be in a tailspin and say kind things about the Klan before that happened.

There is, however, the enthusiasm factor.  If McCain gains during August, Democratic enthusiasm during their Denver convention at the end of the month could wane, and it could show.  No one wants to come out of a convention with visible doubts.   The visibility, though, has to be provided by news organizations, and they can do their bit for Obama, as many already have.

August 4, 2008.      Permalink          

BULLETIN:  McCAIN TAKES THE LEAD

RASMUSSEN

Posted at 9:39 a.m. ET

It's small, but it's beautiful.  For the first time since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3rd, he's lost his lead to John McCain.  This morning's Rasmussen tracker has McCain up one.

This is statistically insignificant, but emotionally satisfying.  It should be great motivation for the McCain campaign.

We await Gallup this afternoon.

August 4, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY:  AUGUST 4,  2008

Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET

OBAMA'S WOMAN PROBLEM (CONT'D)

The resilience of the resentment among Democratic women toward Barack Obama is remarkable.  I heard Geraldine Ferraro, the party's 1984 vice presidential candidate, interviewed on radio last week, and she refused to commit herself to voting for Obama in November.  That's a major story.  Naturally, no one picked it up. 

Now The Politico reports that resentment is building toward Obama's vice presidential choice, no matter who it may be, unless it's Hillary:

Many of the foremost activists in the women’s movement ardently believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be Barack Obama’s running mate — and primary wounds that are just beginning to heal may be torn back open should the Democratic nominee select someone else, as it seems very likely he will.

Seems like a no-winner for Barack.

About one in five voters who supported Clinton in the Democratic primaries tell pollsters that they are not voting for Obama, according to a mid-July Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters — a number that’s only slightly lower than when Clinton dropped out and the conventional wisdom had it that support would coalesce around the presumptive nominee after a brief cooling-off period.

The split isn’t limited to women. “No matter who he picks,” said former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, “the question is going to be raised: Are you telling me that this person would be a better qualified vice president than Hillary Clinton?”

That's a party-splitting question, friends.  Do you sense the kind of anger I'm sensing?  Oh goody.

Any selection other than Clinton will reinforce some women’s sense that the most qualified candidate, a woman, has been passed over for the position.

Clinton has in this sense become a metaphor for the women’s movement itself.

“There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

“It seems like the smart choice will be to pick Hillary Clinton because she adds so much to the ticket but the second choice should be a nominee who supported Hillary Clinton, to try and bring the sides together.”

And...

“Those adamant Clinton supporters, the older, and I would say wealthier women, and some of the better known feminists from the dark ages, I think they will use his vice presidential choice, whether a woman or a man, as an excuse not to support him,” said Joan Hoff, an historian at Montana State University and a former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency.

I've never loved dark-age feminists until today.  I now see their virtue.

Hoff compared the current dynamic to the Republicans in 1976, when Ronald Reagan’s supporters never fully rallied to Gerald Ford, and the Democrats in 1980, when Edward M. Kennedy’s supporters never fully warmed to Jimmy Carter.

“Ford lost because the neoconservatives sat on their hands and didn’t turn out to vote. The real worry is that [Clinton’s supporters] are going to sit on their hands, the older feminists,” Hoff said. “I’m telling you they’re mad.

“It’s not that they are going to vote for McCain,” Hoff added. “It’s just that they are not going to get out there on the hustings” for Obama.

Ford lost because of neocons?  They're blaming neocons for that, too?  What about global warming?  Neocons?

At any rate, it's clear the wound in the Democratic Party is still there.  And if Obama can't heal it, and goes on to lose, the party can split. 

This is getting juicy.

August 4,  2008.      Permalink          

MORE GREAT FUN

There are some Republicans who actually have a pulse. They staged a revolt in the House on Friday, protesting Speaker Pelosi's decision to adjourn rather than vote on offshore drilling.  Now they're back for more.  Give these guys a hand.  At least they're alive:

Continuing with their guerilla tactics from last week, House Republicans will be back on the floor Monday to talk gas prices, even though Congress is in recess, and they may stay there all week.

More than a dozen Republicans have already committed to make appearances, according to House GOP leadership aide, including National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who lead Friday's five-hour talkathon after the House shut down for the August recess, are also expected to be there, according to this aide.

If only Charlton Heston lived.  He would come.

The session will not be televised, since C-Span does not control the cameras inside the House chamber. Rather, those come under the purview of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats, and they're unlikely to do anything to help Republicans.

But Republicans felt they got a lot of good press out of Friday's "revolt," so they will be back at it again, and younger GOP lawmakers were clearly energized by the tactic, something not evident among Republicans for most of the 110th Congress.

Right.  Now how about President Bush pulling a Truman '48, and calling Congress back into session to deal with the energy crisis.  Since the Dems are controlled by the Church of St. Al the Cooler, they won't solve anything, and the GOP can have a field day. 

All right, Mr. President.  A little mischief, please.

August 4, 2008.      Permalink          

OKAY, ONE MORE TIME

The Iranians have given another final answer, one of many final answers, to the rough, tough diplomats who've been pretty pleasing them to stop their nuclear enrichment:

Iran and the representative of six world powers talked by telephone on Monday over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme but the Islamic Republic said it would press ahead despite a demand to halt the work.

Western officials had set an informal deadline of last Saturday for Tehran to respond to an offer by the powers to refrain from imposing more U.N. sanctions on Iran if it froze expansion of its nuclear work.

Shortly before the call between Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, an Iranian official said Iran would not discuss the freeze idea.

The West fears the programme is aimed at building bombs.

I'd say that's a pretty good guess.

In comments likely to stoke tension, Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief said the Islamic Republic had the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route, if attacked. The Guards said they had tested a new naval weapon.

I can just hear Obama's response to this:  "You know, if only the negotiating table had a different shape.  But BUSH wouldn't do it.  I will!"

"Mr Solana will be in touch with the authorities of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States," an EU official said after confirming the phone talks.

That's nice.  They can talk about Olympic pole vaulting.  Very hot.  Very hot.

Washington, leading efforts to isolate Iran, said on Sunday Iran's refusal to stop made moves on more sanctions inevitable.

"It is clear that the government of Iran has not complied with the international community's demand to stop enriching uranium and isn't even interested in trying," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

"They leave the Security Council no choice but to increase the sanctions, as called for in the last resolution passed."

No choice?  Of course the Council has a choice.  It can stall until November to see who the next president will be.  The Iranians can stall as well.  Why should they commit to anything when they may get a president who'll crawl on bended knee?

August 4, 2008.      Permalink