conspiracysquirrels.com

Obama and the Dems: Still Against Missile Defense Systems

2008-08-20T12:40:32-04:00

As our Eastern European allies, in a direct response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, are clamoring to sign up for deployment in their territory of our missile defense systems, Democrats seem insistent on keeping those systems undeployed and on the drawing board. At least that's what the New York Times is telling us this morning, in the article Some Democrats Urge Delay in Building a U.S. Missile System in Eastern Europe.

As the Bush administration speeds ahead with plans to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, some Democrats in Congress want to put on the brakes, saying it has not been adequately tested.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to be in Warsaw on Wednesday to sign an agreement on the missiles with Poland, which agreed to the basing of 10 interceptors last week, after the Russian attacks on Georgia. Justified as a defense against a missile attack on Europe by a rogue nation like Iran, the installation has provoked outrage from Russia.

Even before the agreement was reached, the Bush administration had proposed spending $712 million in the coming fiscal year to start digging silos in Poland; installing a related radar system in the Czech Republic, another former Soviet satellite that is now a NATO member; and buying initial parts for the first interceptor missiles.

But Democrats are now questioning all that spending as premature.

The article goes on to name the influential Democrats who are demanding that the missile defense program remain in the "testing" phase, a group that includes Barack Obama. The new Democratic tactic of focusing public attention on the terms "unproven" and "testing" when discussing missile defense is part of an intensive public relations campaign, first launched in 2006, of claiming that they've "always" been in support of a missile defense system - just one that "works". I guess that's in opposition to Republican support of a missile defense system that "doesn't work".

As Austin Bay reminds us here in a blog post from way back in October '06, that's garbage. The Democrats have been vociferously against missile defense since Ronald Reagan first proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative back in 1983 in his famous "Star Wars" speech. (For anyone who wants a primer on missile defense, Star Wars, and the Democrats consistent opposition to those programs, FrontPageMag.com has a transcript posted of a symposium held in 2006 on missile defense, Star Wars Defense.)

Because the Democrats have changed their rhetoric on missile defense doesn't mean that they've changed their opposition to it. Take the Democrats' new plea for more testing, forgetting for a moment that they've continuously opposed funding such testing. Missile defense systems are already real, and tested. The Missile Defense Agency is a working part of the Defense Department. The systems that have been tested are deployable now. In addition to being successfully test-launched from both land and sea on numerous occasions, the sea-based system also successfully shot down an errant satellite recently. It's not as if this system is going to be actively launched week in and week out as an offensive weapon - its deployment is meant as a deterrent. And, as with all major defense systems, it's not a static system. Once deployed, the missile defense system is designed to be an evolving program and platform, one that will see (hopefully) continuous improvement in later technological generations.

A reasonable person must now ask what the Democrats ultimate goal is - why do they want more testing of a system that, while not perfect yet, is operational and would be of great help to both ourselves and our allies?

The New York Times article also helpfully reminds us about Barack Obama's position on missile defense, when it states further down in the piece that the candidate is pedaling the official Democratic line in "urging caution, saying the system is unproven". As with most NYT articles on Democrats, however, that soft-pedals Obama's true positions. Luckily, other sources have documented the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate's various declarations on defense policy including missile defense, complete with a video and transcript of Obama on this subject in his own words: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs. Among the gems:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

So, less money for the tested and proven missile defense systems that both reasonable people and our allies think are vital to international security, and no weaponizing space. The "space" statement is particularly galling, since more effective missile defense systems will need to either travel through "space" or be based in "space". It's just another code word that liberal Democrats have used against "Star Wars" and subsequent missile defense system proposals since the 80s. And today it begs the further question, what do we do in response if other countries "weaponize" space - sit back and watch?

Once again, the Democrats are carving out their position on a vital national and international issue based on their own myopic world-view and special interests - refusing to adapt to, and even actively ignoring, very real and constantly changing facts on the ground.

The Democratic Do Nothing Congress

2008-08-19T10:46:40-04:00

There's a great front page article in this morning's Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Williamson concerning the achievements of the present Democratic Congress (or, rather, the lack thereof): As U.S. Economic Problems Loom, House, Senate Sweat the Small Stuff. It's a fun read - here's an excerpt:

The 110th Congress, whose term officially ends in January, hasn't passed any spending bills or attacked high gasoline prices. But it has used its powers to celebrate watermelons and to decree the origins of the word "baseball."

Barring a burst of legislative activity after Labor Day, this group of 535 men and women will have accomplished a rare feat. In two decades of record keeping, no sitting Congress has passed fewer public laws at this point in the session -- 294 so far -- than this one. That's not to say they've been idle. On the flip side, no Congress in the same 20 years has been so prolific when it comes to proposing resolutions -- more than 1,900, according to a tally by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

With the mostly symbolic measures, Congress has saluted such milestones as the Idaho Potato Commission's 70th anniversary and recognized soil as an "essential natural resource." As legislation on gasoline prices, tax fixes and predatory lending languish, Congress has designated May 5-9 as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week, and set July 28 as the Day of the American Cowboy.

This is truly embarrassing, especially in light of the promises that the Democrats made both before and after taking over Congress. If the Republican Party had cleaned house more effectively starting immediately after the 2006 elections, and had they gotten the rest of their act together, they'd be able to take over control of both the Senate and the House this year. Instead, they're looking at more losses.

Sheesh...

3 Days After Saddleback, Obama Looks Even Sillier

2008-08-19T09:38:14-04:00

Three days after the Presidential forum at Saddleback Church in California, revelations are still coming out that makes Barack Obama's complaint that John McCain "cheated" look even more like the infantile, schoolyard whining of a loser.

The Washington Post has an article this morning, expanding on something that we first learned about yesterday, revealing that both candidates had been made aware of several questions that were going to be asked, and were also informed of the various issues that Rick Warren was going to cover during their interviews: Candidates Got Advance Look at Questions.

Responding to questions about whether Sen. John McCain had an unfair advantage over Sen. Barack Obama at Saturday's forum on faith at the Saddleback Church in California, a spokesman for the Rev. Rick Warren said both candidates had an advance look at a few questions.

Spokesman A. Larry Ross said the candidates had agreed that McCain would not listen to Obama's interview, which came first by a coin-flip agreement. But Ross said Warren gave them both a sense of what to expect.

Warren provided McCain and Obama with the four subject areas, Ross said -- leadership, stewardship, worldview and international compassion -- and provided them a sense of the themes he would ask about, including topics such as energy and taxes.

He also offered three examples of questions he planned to ask: What is your greatest moral failure? What is America's greatest moral failure? Who are the three people you rely on for wise advice?

With those revelations, Barack Obama's performance on Saturday night looks even worse. It's becoming abundantly clear that Obama's "eloquence" and "oratorical skills" rely solely on the availability of a teleprompter. If he's asked to think on his feet, even if he's been made aware of the types of questions and subject matter beforehand, he's in deep trouble.

In a way, it seems as if the Obama campaign wasn't satisfied with seeing their candidate get a drubbing on Saturday night - they needed that drubbing to continue on for a few days. Notice how the Washington Post article above begins: "Responding to questions about whether Sen. John McCain had an unfair advantage over Sen. Barack Obama at Saturday's forum on faith at the Saddleback Church in California...". Had Obama not made a point of complaining loudly that McCain had cheated, this information would probably have never come out.

Barack Obama brought this on himself. Either he or his campaign hand-fed Andrea Mitchell the line about McCain cheating, and she dutifully reported it as fact on NBC News without checking it out herself. The Obama campaign wanted this "cheating" angle to become conventional wisdom, and was counting on the media to not do any follow-up reporting. They did, and Obama's strategy has backfired. In something that probably should have been included in today's Washington Post's article, but for some reason wasn't, the Post's own Howard Kurtz commented on what Mitchell did during his weekly Internet Q&A, as relayed to us by MediaBistro.com's "FishbowlDC": Kurtz: Mitchell Gave Obama Campaign "Free Shot" At McCain:

Arlington, Va.: How unprofessional was it for Andrea Mitchel and NBC News to air anonymous allegations that McCain had cheated and heard the questions in advance during Saturdays's event? Wouldn't an unbiased discussion have included denials from the McCain campaign? Instead of being a stenographer for the Obama campaign, shouldn't she have done some reporting on the subject (checking out the room, etc....)before spouting their spin on nationwide TV?

Howard Kurtz: Here's the exchange:
ANDREA MITCHELL: The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that--what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

DAVID GREGORY: Right.

ANDREA MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.
Mitchell's defense is that she was just repeating a charge made by Obama aides. I would not have raised it without evidence, or at least without someone from the Obama camp going on the record. Otherwise you're just giving them a free shot without his campaign having to back it up.

Well, Andrea, thanks to you we now know that Barack Obama should have been as well prepared as John McCain - they both knew what they were going to be talking about. As that tidbit makes Obama look even smaller, we're wondering what your opinion is on what that tells us about your candidat...err...Obama? No need to clear your answer first with the Obama campaign - what's your opinion, as a journalist and political commentator?

So not only does John McCain convincingly win what can arguably be called the first Presidential debate of the 2008 Election season, he gets to watch his opponent take his own campaign, along with Andrea Mitchell and the Obama state media network - NBC, down a few more notches.

Not a bad weekend's work.

The Democrats Find Their Religion

2008-08-18T12:52:34-04:00

Ben Smith is reporting over at the Politico that Barack Obama came back from vacation with a bang, hauling in $7.8 million during three fundraisers in San Francisco last night: Obama: 'I will win'.

If I were Obama, however, I'd put a few disclaimers after his claim "I will win". Such as, "I will win, as long as I don't get tripped up by having to speak extemporaneously in front of large televised crowds." Or, "I will win, as long as the voters never find out what my true positions are."

But the most amazing thing that I took out of the report was how the holy-roller herself, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, introduced Barack Obama:

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

Apparently, according to Pelosi, he really is the Messiah!

The pool report, written by Shailagh Murray of the Washington Post, also reveals that Obama is sticking to his criticism of the inhabitants of America outside of San Francisco, only a bit more delicately:

Obama spoke at length about the difficulties that many Americans were facing (beyond these four walls at least), hitting similar points from his “bitter” speech, but without the guns and God landmines.

And Obama is still insinuating, as part of the foundation of His argument to elect Himself as President, that anyone who questions either His experience, qualifications, or constantly shifting political positions are coming from people who are unjustifiably trying to "scare" the voters. Move along, there's nothing to see here, folks...

At least Obama's learned not to call them "racists", as well - at least in public. He'll just leave that to the media.

See What Happens When You Assign a Reporter to a Story...

2008-08-15T17:01:36-04:00

The New York Times finally got around to assigning a reporter to the John Edwards story this week, after ignoring it since last September, and their small first step is already beginning to pay off. From the article, Lawyers’ Ties Hint at Extent of Hiding Edwards’s Affair:

As tabloid reports of a sex scandal threatened former Senator John Edwards’s presidential campaign last December on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, two lawyers surfaced with written statements that appeared to exonerate the candidate.

One of them, Robert J. Gordon of New York, said that his client, Rielle Hunter, a pregnant 43-year-old filmmaker, was not carrying Mr. Edwards’s child. Shortly thereafter, the other lawyer, Pamela J. Marple of Washington, sent word that her client, Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, was the baby’s father.

Seemingly issued independently of Mr. Edwards, the statements appeared to deflate the anonymously sourced reports of an Edwards tryst. But what went unnoticed was that the two lawyers shared an important connection to Mr. Edwards that suggests they were part of an orchestrated effort to protect him, one that is continuing even after he admitted last week that he had an affair with Ms. Hunter but denied that he fathered her child.

The lawyers are linked through Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas lawyer and former finance chairman for the Edwards campaign who was a key player in the campaign’s response to the scandal. Mr. Gordon has worked with Mr. Baron on class-action personal injury cases, and Ms. Marple helped defend a lawsuit brought against both men and their law firms by an asbestos manufacturer.

After initially saying that he did not know how the lawyers were chosen to represent Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young, Mr. Baron acknowledged that he might have played a role.

Memo to Mr. Edwards: when one gets caught lying about an issue serious enough that it requires both a public admission and apology, whatever you do DON'T MAKE IT WORSE BY LYING DURING SAID ADMISSION AND APOLOGY! AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU DO, DON'T MAKE IT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT BY HAVE OTHERS LIE ON YOUR BEHALF AFTER THE APOLOGY! Don't they teach anything at law school these days?

And look how fast the New York Times is getting results! Kind of makes you wonder what they would have been able to uncover if they chose to investigate it when the issue first came up last year.

Also make you wonder what else they're hiding on behalf of the Democrats...

Pelosi Backs Off Oil Drilling Vote

2008-08-15T11:46:28-04:00

As expected, Nancy Pelosi has backed off her oil drilling vote proposal, indicating in a fairly clear manner that it will only be allowed as part of a package that will be unpalatable to most, Pelosi won't limit vote to offshore drilling:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday firmly rejected the idea of a House vote solely on the issue of offshore oil drilling, calling it "a hoax on the American people" backed by oil companies.

"You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources," the San Francisco Democrat said in an interview for KQED television's weekly news show, "This Week in Northern California." "We want to connect all that together."

As Pelosi knows full well that the Republicans are not proposing a vote on just oil-drilling, but that their American Energy Act contains provisions on funding alternative energy, this is clearly part of her propaganda campaign before proposing her own bill that will be unacceptable to all.

My recommendations to the GOP on how they should handle this situation remain: How The GOP Can Counter Pelosi on Energy.

The Consequences for Russia Begin

2008-08-14T18:49:25-04:00

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said earlier today in his press conference (video can be found here, transcript is not yet up), Russia's actions in Georgia will result in our allies, especially in the Russian power sphere that Putin is trying to establish, quickly moving towards closer relations with us on all levels, including militarily.

The first manifestation of that occurred today. USA Today just reported that Poland has finally agreed to a missile defense compact with the United States, something that Putin furiously oppose: U.S., Poland agree to missile defense deal. The reason given by Poland? The offensive military actions by Russia in Georgia, of course.

Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday that will see a battery of American missiles established inside Poland, the prime minister said, announcing a plan that has infuriated Russia and raised the specter of an escalation of tension with the region's communist-era master.

The deal, which Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said was to be signed later Thursday in Warsaw by Poland and the United States, includes what he called a "mutual commitment" between the two nations — beyond that of NATO — to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.

That was an obvious reference to the force and ferocity with which Russia rolled into Georgia in recent days, taking the key city of Gori and apparently burning and destroying Georgian military outposts and airfields.

Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if Poland were threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that machinery."

Notice that Polish Prime Minister Tusk is quite critical of NATO, recognizing that the defense treaty organization is too bloated to provide effective aid in the event of aggressive action by Russia.

This agreement will not prevent a Georgia-like invasion, of course. But it seems that this Putin-directed attack will prod NATO members and other Western allies to request NATO or other friendly militaries to position assets in more countries, especially those that border Russia.

In the middle of July, the United States held joint military maneuvers with Georgia immediately outside of the Georgian capital. The South Ossetians waited until the U.S. Military force (1500 Marines) left, at which time they started launching small attacks across their border against Georgian troops. It was designed to induce a reaction from the Georgian military, and that's exactly what happened.

On Wednesday, AEI held a event assessing what just happened in Georgia. Participating was Lt. Col. Bob Hamilton of the U.S. Army, who just returned from Tbilisi. The following observation was made by the Lt. Colonel:

Recently returned from a tour as the chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi, Hamilton explained that the American capacity-building program in Georgia has been focused on developing the skills necessary for conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions--not for prosecuting a "full-spectrum, maneuver war." An inexperienced senior leadership corps, limited command and control capabilities, and a severe numerical disadvantage against Russia further hindered the Georgian military. The small republic's armed forces were no match for those of their northern neighbor. "This was not a fair fight, and it was never going to be a fair fight," Hamilton said.

Future military training and capacity building will be more focused on repelling invaders, no doubt. And that will be the case with all of our Russian-bordering allies.

I'd encourage everyone to watch Secretary Gates' full presser, including the question and answer period. It's quite enlightening. There is one part that is a bit controversial, where Gates seemingly takes off the table any U.S. military option in Georgia. But in later questions, he refines that answer, making clear that his response was predicated on Russia doing what it had agreed to do in the ceasefire. Gates also made clear that both he and the United States were doing everything in their power not to respond to Russia's aggressive rhetoric with aggressive rhetoric of our own.

Having said that, Gates also made clear that he felt that there should be consequences for Russia. He stated that Georgia's NATO membership will be taken up again during the organizations regularly scheduled meeting in December, and made clear that he expected that updates from the U.S. military survey team now in Georgia, and their upcoming report, were going to be major factors in determining how the United States proceeds from here.

Gates also makes it clear the he feels that he and other United States officials were lied to, as they all were given assurances by their counterparts that Russia was not going outside South Ossetia into greater Georgia. When the Secretary was asked if he thought that Russia had been planning this all along, he paused and said "I don't know".

Putin was betting on the West doing nothing in response to their aggression. That might be the case as far as direct military involvement with the United States (unless Russia does something very, very stupid). The Prime Minister also felt that by punishing Georgia, other countries would turn away from the West and the United States. In addition, it's clear that Putin felt that he could intimidate the pro-Western government of Georgia into resigning, after which Russia would have installed a puppet government.

The Russian Prime Minister is going to be disappointed. The Georgian government remains in power, and the West is rallying around it. Military cooperation with Russia has just ceased. Economic and trade sanctions are threatened, and several existing arrangements will disintegrate (hopefully including the G-8 agreement). The United States' missile defense shield will be deployed. Military ties to Western allies will be tightened. Western business investment in Russia will cease.

While Russia might be petro-dollar rich at the present moment, its greater economy is still in shambles and its infrastructure is disintegrating. The new wealth has mainly gone into Putin's military. Based upon the Russian military's performance in Georgia, however, that investment does not look like it was well spent. Had the Georgians been equipped and trained properly (as they will be in the future), they should have been able to at the very least halt, if not repel the Russian troops.

Remember the line about winning a battle, but losing a war. In this case, the war isn't just a military one, but also economic.

Media Rewrites History of Recent History

2008-08-14T14:15:10-04:00

The New York Times and the Washington Post, along with the Politico, have published stories over the past few days that attempt to slam several new books about Barack Obama, especially one by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Obama Nation. As Corsi was involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the media has taken to refer to the book associated with that group, Unfit for Command, as "widely disproved". They might wish that it was so, but although some small details needed clarification, the major points in the book were not disproved.

Mark Hemingway posts on this subject over at NRO's "The Corner" blog, Discrediting the Discreditors:

Today's Washington Post story "New Books Aim To Unweave the Obama Narrative," by Eli Saslow contains this gem:
In 2004, Corsi co-wrote "Unfit for Command," in which Swift boat veterans criticized Sen. John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record. That book was also widely disproved.
Um, really? While I think it's true that not every claim surrounding the dozens and dozens of questions the Swift Vets' book posed about Kerry's military record is 100 percent accurate, saying it was "widely disproved" is a bit much. Does the Post have some compelling explanation for how Kerry earned three purple hearts in the span of four months without spending a day in the infirmary? Can they explain how his nonexistent trip to Cambodia was "seared" in his memory? The way Kerry unfairly smeared his commanding officer in Brinkley's Tour of Duty book such that corrections had to be made for the paperback? Can they explain how he testified to Congress of widespread atrocities committed by American soldiers, entirely without evidence? His high-level participation in an anti-war protest group that spoke openly of assassinating U.S. Senators? etc. At some point, people ought to acknowledge that the Swift Vets charges were effective because there was, in fact, a lot of truth behind them.

The journalists attempting to debunk the new books on Obama "doth protest too much". As we've just found out with the John Edwards case, the fact that a journalist doesn't want something to be true, and that the mainstream media is afraid of doing a real investigation because of the political ramifications of what it might find, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Spend more time investigating and less time complaining, guys...

Global Warming Alarmism Takes Another Hit

2008-08-13T13:13:33-04:00

There's a fascinating article up today at Science Daily, Global Warming Will Do Little To Change Hurricane Activity, According To New Model. It describes a new study just released, using new methods, that counter-indicates the theory that global warming is causing an increase in hurricane frequency.

While current thinking about changes in hurricane frequency comes mostly from computer simulations of global climate, the computer models used for these studies can only represent the coarsest features of hurricanes, thus casting doubt in their predictions of hurricane activity.

The new approach by Nolan and Rappin, developed in collaboration with Dr. Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, uses computer models with much more accurate representation of the processes that lead to hurricane formation, much the same way a digital image with more pixels allows for a more detailed photographic image.

The models are used to simulate the rate of hurricane development in tropical atmospheres with varying values of sea surface temperature and vertical wind shear (which is the extent to which wind speed and direction changes with height in the atmosphere). These two variables – ocean temperature and wind shear -- are considered to be the two most important factors in predicting hurricane activity, both in operational forecasting and in consideration of climate change.

"We designed the computer simulations to show that as the ocean temperature increased, hurricanes would form more rapidly and easily, even in the presence of wind shear," says Nolan, associate professor of Meteorology at the Rosenstiel School. "Instead, we got exactly the opposite result. As the water temperature increased, the effectiveness of the wind shear in suppressing hurricane formation actually became greater."

The simulations show that if they do form, hurricanes become stronger in the warmer environments. Together, these results suggest that in a global warming world, there would be less hurricanes, but those that do form could become stronger. The same prediction has recently been made by other studies using global climate models, and the similarity of the two predictions enhances confidence in the results.

Bottom line - global warming will cause no increase in hurricane activity - perhaps even causing a decrease. However, whatever hurricanes do form in the warmer environments might be stronger.

Take that Al Gore!

How The GOP Can Counter Pelosi on Energy

2008-08-13T11:01:16-04:00

One of the major criticisms of the Republicans in this Congress has been their inability to take advantage of issues that fall into their laps. We're currently seeing an example of that in the Senate, where John McCain's buddy Lindsey Graham, by organizing another "Gang of 10 on Energy", has taken away the GOP's advantage on the issue in the Senate. Thank's for energizing the base, Senator. I guess you enjoy being in the minority, watching our country go down the tubes.

Republicans in the House are about to face a similar problem. Nancy Pelosi, by indicating to Larry King her willingness to allow a vote on offshore drilling, might cause some Republicans to think that they've won the issue. They haven't. It's vitally important to remember that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's word cannot be trusted, as even her supporters have found out. Let's look at an excerpt from the article in The Hill from late Monday night that broke the news of Pelosi's newfound love of offshore drilling, Pelosi indicates openness to offshore drilling vote:

Pelosi had previously said she would allow a vote on drilling and then backed off. On July 30, the last day Congress was in before the August recess, she was interviewed by the Capitol Hill press corps. She was asked if she could envision a vote on drilling in new areas this year, and she answered, “Of course.”

But her aides later released a statement saying she was not announcing a change in her stance on a drilling vote.

Nancy Pelosi was, is, and always will be against expanded oil drilling because she is beholden to her environmental special interest groups. It's safe to assume that the unveiling of this new position that Larry King forced out of her (using his usual hard-hitting interviewing techniques) is but a ploy.

Her real plan is simple. She has to hold a vote on the offshore drilling moratorium in September, or else the moratorium will expire on its own, which would be a huge embarrassment for her. So she's going to schedule a vote on a bill, not about renewing the moratorium (which she knows will fail), but on allowing drilling, and will load that bill with amendments that would be very painful for Republicans to accept. If the GOP balks, Pelosi and the Democrats will attempt to claim that the Republicans never wanted anything else but drilling - that this has all been a grand political stunt. The media will merely amplify Pelosi's talking points. Therefore, Pelosi believes that the Republicans will have to vote for her bill, and she's attempting to cause the greatest amount of political damage she can to the GOP on an issue she can't otherwise win.

The GOP, at least in the House, is in front on this issue, and it's important for them to stay in front. That means beginning the counter-attack on Pelosi's transparent strategy now.

Luckily, some in the media recognize what Pelosi's game is, as this article in The Hill shows: Pelosi looks to load up drilling bill. They are even critical about how Pelosi announced her 'Revelation' on offshore drilling:

Pelosi intentionally timed her reversal on CNN’s “Larry King Live” to fall well before the political intensity of the party conventions and into a news cycle dominated by the Olympics.

The article goes on to signal what types of things the Democrats are likely to attach to a drilling bill to make it difficult for the GOP to support:

As she announced her willingness to hold a drilling vote Monday night, she stressed that it would have to be part of a larger energy package. And the contents of that package might include some items that would be tough for Republicans and the energy industry to swallow, like a renewable portfolio standard and the Democrats’ signature “use it or lose it” legislation.

...In the CNN interview, she indicated that drilling, which she’s opposed for years, could be accompanied by “great things” like expansion of wind power, solar energy and biofuels. She hinted that the package could include the Democratic leadership’s “use it or lose it” plan to force drillers to produce their existing federal leases, more regulation of greenhouse gases, and that the federal government should get more money for the oil.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a "windfall profits tax" attached to Pelosi's bill, as well. With such amendments to offshore drilling in the bill, the media will be applauding her "courageous compromise" loud enough so that the public won't be able to hear the environmentalists' screams over expanded drilling. The Democrats and the media will do everything in their power to paint the GOP as the obstructionist villains in this, as they always do. Therefore, it's important for the Republicans to start to spread the word on why certain "poison pill" amendments that are destined to be attached to offshore drilling are totally unacceptable.

Luckily, House Republicans seem to be unwavering in stating clearly their demand - bring up the American Energy Act (AEA) for a clean vote, with no other amendments. The media has been mimicking their Democratic overlords by claiming that the House Republicans, and Republicans in general, are focusing on more drilling to the exclusion of anything else. The GOP must do a better job of pointing out that the AEA is all encompassing. In addition to allowing more drilling for immediate relief, it also promotes higher emission and gas mileage standards, quick expansion of nuclear power, along with support for wind, solar and hydrogen power - all Democratic-friendly solutions.

In addition, the GOP must pre-emptively issue their arguments against the coming "windfall profits tax" proposal, pointing out that "big oil" is overwhelming owned by individuals (that's us), mutual, and retirement funds (that's the elderly) - and that oil companies already send 40.7% of their income to the government in the form of income taxes ($90.4 billion in 2006 alone).

The "use it or lose it" canard is just as easily to disprove, and must be rebutted forcefully, loudly, and often. Just point out that it's already contained in the leases, and then point out what the oil companies actually do (in resources, time and money) before they are able to determine that a lease site is viable. Then explain how much oil companies have to subsequently spend to get the oil out of the ground.

If I were the GOP, I'd promptly propose something to counter the "use it or lose it" meme - something that would immediately neuter the Democrats on this point. If the Democrats are so certain that the oil companies are just sitting on the oil in already leased land, propose that Congress reimburse the oil companies for all costs (including lease expense) on any land that they lease from the country that comes up dry. Let's see Pelosi argue her way out of that one.

But the biggest weapon that the GOP has in it's arsenal is the existence of the automatic expiration of the offshore drilling moratorium. The Republicans have to stand strong and insist that their entire bill gets voted as is. When the Dems claim that it's all about drilling, the GOP must counter that alternative energy is covered by their proposal - if the Dems want to sweeten those incentives, fine. But no poison pills!

If Pelosi complains and blocks, just do whatever it takes to allow the moratorium to expire. Then appeal directly to the voters, saying that it was unfortunate that this was all you could get, since the GOP bill also supported expansion of alternative energy, but that it was the Democrats who played politics - and explain how. Then promise to continue to bring up the AEA every time possible.

The GOP shouldn't look for the media to do their job for them - they won't. Republicans have to talk over the media. It will take brains and guts - brains and guts that certain Senate Republicans seem not to have.

Let's see if House Republicans do...