Found this handy dandy little list.  In case you were harboring the naive notion that the current gas crisis was not designed and executed according to Democrat plan.

A brief history on the Democrat scheme to rid our beautiful nation from the scourge of cheap energy and evil big oil...

Voting statistics:

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans are on record trying to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats are on record against.  

How they get away with is a question for the ages.

Further summary:


The laws of supply and demand are not really that complicated.  Supply up = demand and prices down,  supply down = demand up and price up.  The decades long Democrat crusade to deliberately limit supply is unmistakable and irrefutable.

It's been belabored ad nauseum that congress ignores the laws of economics at it's own peril yet somehow their political peril seems non-existent. The lethal combination of widespread economic illiteracy and spineless go-along-to-get-along Republicans, hey W, yeah, I'm talkin to you, who for fear of being accused of questioning their patriotism, can't muster the cajones to call out the Democrats for undermining our economic and national security.  

If what they are doing is patriotically questionable that's their problem.  State the facts as they are and demand an accounting.  After all, looking the other way while they usher our economy into the tank is as patriotically questionable as it gets.  

  

  

It appears I am not the only one to take umbrage at Obamas (aka Black Bart) race-baiting last week.  Indeed the outrage covers the spectrum.  Where I first heard the remark was, of all places that, the most entrenched of all bastions of liberalism, NPR, from Scott Simon who, after noting that John McCain has never raised race as an issue, admonished Obama and asks the key exit question:

“Can someone raise questions about the experience of a candidate who’s only been a US Senator for four years and who does not have a prodigious legislative record without being stained as a bigot?” 

Great question and it means even more coming from him.  Problem is I don't see anyone from either side stepping up to answer it.    

Lee Carey over at American Thinker offers a response for McCain.  American Thinker is a daily visit site I cannot recommend highly enough btw.  His thesis is that McCain should not only not let the remark pass without a rebuke but that rebuke should be with both barrels.   He's not wrong. RTWT It's Time McCain Picks Up The Glove

A tidbit; 
"Senator Obama's statement at a Jacksonville, Florida fundraiser last Friday is being heralded as a brilliant political move by many in the MSM.  It was, in fact, a shameless and unjustified insult to all Republicans, and all Americans."

I'm not sure why the outcry isn't louder, either playing the race card so brazenly is what we expect from Obama so it's not newsy enough, or much like the phenomena surrounding the last black candidate, Bill Clinton, the press is too awestruck by his political guile and lovestruck by his charisma to think or analyze critically.  

The media has changed a lot since they paved the road to the White House for Clinton.  With you tube, blogs, continuing strength of talk radio, and new found strength of cable news the scrutiny has intensified.  It will take spin of more than clintonian proportion for this candidate, regardless of his political gifts, to continue to fool most of the people most of the time, or at least long enough to win.
 
In the meantime there is absolutely no reason for McCain to help Obama by letting accusations of racism go unchallenged.  It is not as if the lack of rebuke is admission of guilt, but if no one challenges a smear like this why would a casual observer not take it at face value?  The very least McCain could do would be to say the charge is so ridiculous it is not worthy of a response, but no response at all is to cowardly throw in his hand when the race card is played.

One would think a man who holds the concept of honor so dearly, Senator McCain, would be a bit more pugilistic in it's defense.   





    

Had a nice vacation up north.  Saw a big old bear crossing Interstate 39 on the way up.  That sucker had to be 350 pounds or more.  Unlike deer, a bear will actually wait for a break in traffic before they cross the road.  Later in the week we had one about 60 yards off our deck, mid morning, yikes.  This one was just a tad beyond a yearling I would guess.

Anyway, what to my disbelieving eyes and ears when I return and hear this:

“Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"
 - Barack Obama

Wow, talk about audacity!  He's not only playing the race card, he's leading with it. You gotta love the irony no?  He knows full well actually addressing his stewardship of the economy, higher taxes and an even more bloated government, and foreign policy, retreat in Iraq and buddying up with Ahmadenejad, is a losing proposition so his best bet is to change the subject and accuse Republicans of being racist.

Even more audacious than that is he employs the tried and true divisive smear tactics of the past 40 years while accusing his opponents on politics of he past.  Like I said, WOW.  The audacity is hard to miss but where's the hope and change we keep hearing so much about? 

But that dude sure is a smooth talker though eh.  This guy


Sorta reminds me of this guy


another smooth talker who had to outwit a bunch of stupid white crackers, for their own good of course.

In the scene above Black Bart, played by Cleavon Little, says "don't move or the darkie gets it!".  Now it's " vote for me or the country gets it!"  Who exactly is trying to scare whom one wonders. 

Henceforth the Obama campaign will be referred to as Blazing Saddles 2008.

The funniest parts of that movie, ranking right up there with Animal House and Caddy Shack for all-time best comedy ever, was how it so mercilessly ridiculed bigotry.  Obama's over the top race-baiting is just as ridiculous.  Too bad it's not funny.

The only elected body with an approval rating lowers than W's is hard at work trying to look hard at work.

One Senator showed this chart to try and educate others on what actual work might include:
 


While others, our own Herb Kohl for example, voted to sue OPEC.  Yeah, that'll teach 'em.  Predictable enough with a congress full of trial lawyers I suppose. 

Other glimpses of genius problem solving include a windfall profits tax on oil companies, socializing the oil industry altogether and of course bad mouthing speculators.  

The windfall profit tax when tried in the late 70's created a shortage by eliminating any incentive for domestic production.  Nationalizing the oil industry is so over the top it's hard to imagine, or at least it used to be, that an elected official would be so bold, or is it careless, or with this particular pol, Maxine Waters, who can tell, to even use such language.  Th adage that a political gaff is when a pol accidently tells the truth is dead on, and Waters accidently showed her true marxist colors on that slip. :Democrat Maxine Waters Wants To Nationalize Big Oil     

A typical scene from congress:



Hey fellas, while you're up there look around for some new energy, natural gas maybe?, or perhaps a clue.

That could be a reasonable warning if the younger generation of voters turn out in November like they did in the Democrat primary.  

I was around, though very young of course, during the late sixties when the youngsters of that era warned each other not to trust their elders.  One can't help but believe there is at least some of the same sentiment among the youth faction of the left these days as well.
 
With this in the back of my mind I couldn't help but click onto a lefty site wherein the editor went off on a riff on how he is so glad 1968 is dead, how that generation screwed things up so badly, and how the younger voters, like him presumably, are about to make it all better by bringing Obama into office.  

to RTWT Obama and The Death of 1968 « Nah, Nope, Not Quite 

Here's a taste ...

So their rebellion was understandable. And it didn't’t hurt that there were, again, all those great drugs (where did they come from?) and the Vietnam War around to try and get the boys killed.

But this didn't’t make it any easier to take their self-celebrating indulgence, their self-righteous proselytizing, and their self-involved carelessness. We, who came after this generation, suffered at their hands.

And it has been our responsibility to clean up their mess (which we have slowly been doing for years).


Sheeesh, would you like a little cheese with that whine?  I am curious as to when in history one generation didn't leave a mess behind for the next generation to clean up.  I think that's called evolution.  Hopefully we can learn form the mistakes and make the world a better place.  And suffered at their hands, how exactly? by enduring the biggest and longest sustained economic expansion, medical advances, technological advances, social advances in the history of civilization, ending the cold war, decreasing famine, poverty, pestilence?

But this is the part that prompted me to comment:

For the last sixteen years, we have had to live with the realized culmination of the 60's cultural wars. First with the hippie proxy Clintons and now, still, endlessly, with their counter cultural opposite, the establishment frat boy Bush. It hasn't’t been pleasant. And, as a result, America has never, in my lifetime (how about yours?), been in so dire a position as it is today.

Well the ignorance of history suggested initially is on full display now.  My retort:

Frank Says:

“America has never, in my lifetime (how about yours?), been in so dire a position as it is today.”

Ah, from the mouths of babes… Either you were born sometime during the second term of Ronald Reagan or are a lousy student of contemporary history. I am older, but still only a tail-end boomer and can assure you, times, not all that long ago, have been much more, so muchly much more, dire than today. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.

Reagan succeeded the Carter administration that saw an economic morass including double digits in unemployment, interest rates, and inflation. He proceeded to solve these problems with lower taxes, less regulation and smaller government - - precisely the opposite solutions being proposed by Senator Obama, obviously another terrible student of history.

If he wins I hope he can muster his highly self proclaimed judgment to surround himself with a group of older advisers with at least a basic grasp of these historic facts. If he doesn't’t he is neither as smart or judicious as his promoters claim.

It looks like the election will hinge on whether Obama can fool enough youngsters the first time to outnumber those of us oldsters who “won’t get fooled again.”

The last line was reference to a previous comment and the one that made me remember that old slogan from the sixties.  

While I agree that a final farewell to some of the culture of the sixties is long overdue I cannot ignore the contributions made by that generation, nor will I cede the moral superiority and /or accomplishments of the subsequent generation.  Such is the tendency of a self-absorbed youth who cherry pick history to coincide with current new world liberal orthodoxy.  I guess critical thinking kicks in later in life. 

Brings to mind the old Winston Churchill quote:

"If you're twenty and not liberal you have no heart. If you're thirty and not conservative you have no brain".

Perhaps not all is lost though.  I recently had a note from a good buddy whose young adult children have assured him McCain will wipe the floor with Obama.  My advice was not to get too confident and reminded him his children are exceptional, they really are.  The other thing is they live in Texas, where they may actually be representative of the younger voters, but I doubt that translates to the country at large.  I hope it does, but I doubt it. 

This last bit, I fear, is likely the more accurate of the youth mentality these days:

In short, that generation has failed.

Which is why I now, with the candidacy (and likely presidency) of Barrack Obama, proclaim the death of 1968.

Obama is one of us; a caring, hard-working father who seeks understanding and rational, utilitarian solutions to our country’s problems. He is a man who can put aside the differences of 1968 and take the best of both sides of that war of circularity. He is a post-hippie, born in that time, but not of it, with the capacity to see beyond the near horizon to a farther shore, to literally embody a greater destiny for our country; a place where the goodness of 1968 comes from both sides of the cultural divide.

Will this be easy? No. The torch will have to be pried out of the hands of our elders (witness Hillary Clinton’s craven campaign). But pry it we will. And when that time comes, the country, and the world, will be better off.

Of this, we can all be certain.

Well there you go then.  The Obamessiah will reign supreme and not only transcend but heal the cultural and political divide forty years in the making.  This takes wishful thinking way beyond anywhere those hallucigens of 1968 could take you.   

Only someone completely clueless about his actual public record could place Obama in the center of the political spectrum, that or rhapsodic blindness.  

And you know what kid?  You're damn right we will not give it up easily.  The stakes are just too high to give it up to hope and a prayer.  Sometimes your elders really do know better.  We are going to do what it takes to educate you and your contemporaries on the difference between style and substance.  And just like your Dad used to tell you, we're doing it for your own good. 
    
 

That's me, today, born June 7, 1958 at 2:40 a.m. I guess now I am officially entitled to my curmudgeonly disposition, a certified grumpy old fart.

I have seen parts of 6 decades starting in the last half of the second Eisenhower term.  There has been much change through this period.  Two biggies come to mind, the completion of the interstate system of which Charles Kurrault once said "now you can drive form coast to coast without seeing anything" along with the internet, where you can research all day long and not learn anything.  But in both cases it's a matter of perspective.  The key is in the prudent selection of diversion, knowing where to take an exit, or where to click.

The sometimes uncomfortably rapid increase of interconnectedness afforded by these developments has indeed shrunk the world. Arguments on whether this is a good or bad thing abound.  In the end most are left simply to respond and adjust because the wheels of progress, a term I use advisedly, while sometimes too slowly for some, never stop turning.

It's been fun, mostly. My age group grew up amidst both hot and cold wars.  My oldest brother was a conscientious objector during the Viet Nam conflict, my second oldest brother enlisted in the marines.  In my mind the question as to which had the moral high ground is still up for grabs.  Thankfully this a was decision I didn't have to make.  I came of age to serve at about the time they ended the draft, where all we had to do was register - - I didn't bother.

I'm the son of a bricklayer and nurses assistant, self-declared independents who when pressed would never remember voting Republican.  Mom loved the Kennedy's and 40 years ago yesterday watched and wept as another victim of that tragic American family fell. Dad, a WWII vet probably departed the Democrat fold as a result of the culture wars surrounding the Nixon Humphrey and Nixon McGovern elections of 68 and 72. 

Like others their age they bought into the FDR let-the-government-take-care-of-you mindset.  This wasn't some misguided devotion to socialism so much as it was, to people familiar with hard times, accepting an invitation down the path of least resistance. It remains, for all its permutations and label shifting, the basic allure of liberalism today.  Somehow the reality that government never actually solved a problem gets overwhelmed by the delusion that only government is powerful enough to do so, the political conundrum of our age.

At my age, growing up when I did, it doesn't surprise me at all that a women or black could be President.  Why wouldn't they?  What surprises me is others surprise.  Maybe it's my progressive Wisconsin upbringing but this feels a lot more natural than it does historic or groundbreaking.  Its simply an event whose time has come.

As a conservative, my biggest disappointment however, is not that there is a black knocking on the White House door, but that is this particular black. I will grant at the outset he's a smart guy, but so what, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear freakin physicist, so on paper maybe the smartest President ever, and look where that got us.  Obama's success is more a result of political correctness (a.k.a. white guilt) than it is of cultural enlightenment. If a blind alien landed here, was given the right to vote along with a brail resume of each candidate, he'd have to believe we were kidding.  

I needn't prove non-racist bonafides to anyone, but just in case here is an off-the-cuff list of a dozen people of color eminently more qualified to be president than the current Democrat nominee: Ward Connerly, Bill Richardson, Bobby Jindhal, J.C Watts, Ken Blackwell, Micheal Steele, Harold Ford, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice etc. etc.    

With political correctness successfully confused with enlightenment we have arrived at a place where criticizing a black candidates positions will be immediately attacked as racist, but voting for him, based exclusively on his skin color, won't.  I guess if you can buy that alernative action isn't about quotas you can buy just about anything. 

This may be progressive, but if truth has any quarry in this debate, it sure isn't progress.          

I heard this on the radio, I think it was Dennis Millers sidekick Sal, and had to do a little google image search to see if he was  onto something when he asked...


Doesn't Michelle Obama remind you of Aunt Esther from the old Redd Foxx show?  You decide.

                               

 Not certain of the physical resemblance but their ornery dispostions certainly are a match. 

   versus 

Can't recall the source but heard a funny line the other day;
" John McCains medical records revealed that he's got chunks of tougher guys than Obama in his stool".

Well we finally know who the Dems will put up against his Maverickosity.  Let the games begin!  It was a tough hard and sometimes painful, to watch, primary but the delegates called it for Senator Changeyface.
 
Personally I have to agree with Bill Bennett to paraphrase his musing on the Dems last best hope...

The Democratic party nominee is a far left candidate in the traditions of George McGovern, without his military and political record, Michael Dukakis, without his executive experience as governor, John Kerry, without his record of years of service in the Senate, and Jimmy Carter, without his religious integrity. . .

Yeeouch, dat truf be painful man. Do the Dems know how to pick'em er what? 

My take? The black John Edwards won because he's black, and slightly less effeminate - - but neither one has the balls of Hillary Clinton.

Whatever the case Bennett also postulates that choosing such an unvetted nominee reveals how the Dems really have just finally had enough of the Clintons.  Better late than never I suppose but I'm not convinced because Hillary is like herpes, always comes back, and never in a pleasant way.  

Certainly looks like Victor Davis Hanson nails it...

"There is a certain irony here. In a year that for historical and contemporary reasons should be a Democratic shoo-in, the Democrats have nominated about the only candidate who can lose in November, the Republicans the only one of their own who can still win it.

... as with most things written by Dr Hansen, my favorite Democrat, worth the time to RTWT 
An Autopsy of the Primaries

I hope he's right, not because McCain is so great but because Obama would be so horrible.  This whole election hinges on how closely the electorate analyzes the issues, which is why I'm nervous.  This election presents us with as stark of contrast between style and substance as we have ever seen.  

Gotta admit though, in his acceptance speech, Obama chiding McCain for not giving him credit for his accomplishments certainly showed audacity.  It's like challenging someone to argue the nutritional merits of cotton candy.

An Obama mouthpiece making the rounds on Sunday talk shows had this to say about the candidate resigning from his church;

I think obviously what Barack Obama made in the past few days is a deeply personal, not a political decision.
- Robert Gibbs, Obama spokesperson

Uh, yeah, OK, I guess, if by that you mean winning the election is a personal, not a political, goal. 

Sheesh.  The more I watch the more I am convinced they take us for morons.  Problem is every vote validates the take.

You can't blame them though, I mean after all, the same constituency bought this:
YouTube - That Woman  

Must be that nuance thing I keep hearing about...


You can take the man out of the church, but you can't take the church out of the man.

Not that I am in any position to offer McCain any advice, I would hope someone in that camp has already considered this.  These two questions should be asked over and over and over again up until November:

1: Do you want those who can't even run their own primary running the country?

2: Is it possible to attend a church for 20 years and not absorb its culture?

The only thing rated lower than Bush is congress, under Democrat leadership.  Every time they trot out that 3rd Bush term nonsense McCain should fire back something connecting Obama-Pelosi-Reid so often it becomes one word - - obamapelosireid, which, come to think of it, sounds like a disease.  Symptoms include incoherence, depression, blindness, and constipation. The only cure is rest, preferably of the retirement variety.

Lather, rinse, repeat.