McCain gives an impressive performance, but must confront Obama on alternative fuels

McCain, aside from the obvious physical impediments placed on his body from 5 1/2 years of captivity at the hands of sadistic communists, came off as the elder statesman, the more presidential of the two candidates yesterday evening. True to form, his opponent retreated to tired, polished responses peppered by his trademark "uhhhhhh" throughout each sentence. The only candidate who offered anything the public hadn't heard before was McCain. At the risk of quoting an overused term, the Republican candidate lived up to his "Straight Talk" persona, managing to speak directly to the questioner and the American people at the same time. On the other hand, his opponent's responses could've come out of any given pep rally or campaign commercial from the past 3 months or so.

Meanwhile, McCain has continually been silent when his detractors mention the dishonest claim that he voted against alternative fuels 25 times in his Senate career. In the third debate, McCain cannot let this pass unchallenged as he and Palin have in their respective debates. The votes his opponent cites do include wind, solar, and geothermal energy, and those are all fine, albeit inefficient forms of alternative energy. However, within those same bills are subsidies for biofuels. Do not make the mistake of confusing these biofuels with those of Brazil, whose sugar cane crop is both efficient and sustainable and the net carbon output actually does make it a true alternative fuel. Instead, these were subsidies for corn ethanol, which is perhaps the least efficient source of ethanol known to man while also being just as hazardous to the environment as the coal and petrol it's supposed to replace.



The reason Obama and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle continue to pretend this is a legitimate alternative has everything to do with the politics as usual and nothing to do with "change" of any sort to the tacit acceptance of corrupt and immoral agribusiness in the United States. For fear of challenging the image of the down-home, small town values, plaid shirt-wearing, pickup truck-driving farmers of America, McCain has failed to come right out and say that corn ethanol is bad for America and corn subsidies are bad for the entire planet. In fact, the mom and pop farmer is as much a victim of agricultural policies perpetuated by Obama as an obese child in the South Bronx who has been fed high-fructose corn syrup from the earliest stages of his life to rural peasants in the developing world who can't keep up with the ballooning price of grain. Quite often it's large expansive corporate farms that buy up increasingly large tracts of land for corn production. The vast majority of that corn (nearly 75%) goes towards ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, and feed for cattle. Ethanol is a viable solution and it could potentially be used to power the entire nations's vehicles-if that ethanol comes from a source other than corn. McCain needs to elaborate this point and drive home the fact that he has a record of bipartisan action on climate change, but that does NOT include further entrenching this nation in dangerous corn subsidies. These subsidies help factory farms drive up food prices, feed us unhealthy cattle, and use their profits for disinformation campaigns for high-fructose corn syrup and lobbying efforts for a brand of ethanol whose carbon output is on par with any traditional fossil fuel.

While the McCain campaign seems resigned to the beating they ritually take from Obama on ties to oil companies, the facts demonstrate that neither candidate is owned by the oil lobby (try here, too). On the other hand, Obama and prominent Democrats are literally in the pocket of the ethanol industry.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers.

[bold is my emphasis]

For the first time in years, the Republicans have a candidate who is pro-stem cell research, pro-environment, pro-evolution; in a word, pro-science. This is the opening McCain needs to portray Obama as anti-science, anti-progress, and xenophobic. Moreover, it is cynical pandering in its rawest form. The Arizona Senator should propose that we dive head-first into algae-ethanol research (The most efficient ethanol source on Earth), while lifting trade barriers, including those on sugar, as a means to revitalize the economy and open re-open the marketplace of ideas.



Meanwhile, McCain can propose constructing algae-ethanol facilities (which are impervious to the surrounding climate and produce a constant yield) in rust belt cities like Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Detroit, Duluth, and Youngstown. It is imperative that McCain makes these facts known if he wants to seriously perpetuate his status as an independent reformer. That's putting country first and that's the kind of straight talk Obama lacks the courage to confront.

WHO reignited the culture war?

I would link a story, but I don't need to. Nearly all major news outlets have made the claim in one segment/article or another: Sarah Palin's nomination revived the culture war. First the major media outlets overplayed select aspects of Palin's record, then staged a tantrum that a "war" was taking shape when her supporters came to her defense. McCain is a moderate who never put much stock in the phony "conflict" that draft-dodging journalists and College Republicans have been propagating ever since Pat Buchanan choked out his last breath of relevance in at the Republican National Convention in 1992. For him, an war with actual elements of danger and death was quite enough. What makes this "culture war" so much fun for those who fight is that the only casualties are the reputations of public figures and no exercise of any kind is required. Unless you count the tired process of your average news cycle, but that's not the type of exercise I mean. Observe:



So, we can all agree that the guys who use the term culture war want to censor those they disagree with and shut them and their families off from dissenting opinions. For them, this is a war that is won by never seeing or hearing from your enemy.

With that unfortunate example of neoconservatives and paleoconservatives embracing out of the way, the question remains: Did Sarah Palin bring it back? I first began supporting Palin for VP in May of this year, and started this blog a week or so before the nomination. What brought me to this conclusion was not her stance on abortion or evolution, but her record as governor of Alaska. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find her religious views expressed anywhere if one searched articles pertaining to her in the Summer of 2008, as I did.

Instead, there were bountiful examples of a brash independent streak that had won her enemies on both sides of the aisle. According to Bloomberg News

Ms. Palin threatened to evict Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest oil company, and partners BP PLC, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. from a state-owned gas field, winning their promise to increase Alaska's natural gas output 17 per cent.

This and other moves led conservatives to compare her to Hugo Chavez, and her policies to socialism. That was the Sarah Palin I supported and continue to support today. You wouldn't recognize it today, because of all the sensationalism the media has engaged in by pointing out her belief in God or that neither she nor her daughter chose infanticide, a fact she only chose to reveal when the media began suggesting she had faked her pregnancy while Bristol delivered Trig Palin. This is not to suggest that the media is liberally biased. I am wary of such a blanket statement, but it is obvious with every passing day that the media is simplistic and ruthless and is motivated by factoids, not facts, sound bites, not speeches, and profit, not informing. It is no wonder that they would seize upon isolated speech excerpts, trivial meetings and family issues to turn one of the few credible reformers left in this country into an extremist Christian who will lord over McCain the way Cheney was assumed to pull President Bush's strings. Anyone keeping score knows it was the sensationalists, not Palin, who reanimated the rotting corpse of the dishonest culture war.

Obama's taking a beating on all sides

Ever since the Palin nomination, Obama has found himself playing defense in just about every area in which he thought he was on solid ground. His message of Change is finally being put under scrutiny, and the results haven't been pretty. He's losing 8 out of 11 key swing states since the Republican National Convention. Obama's now trying to maintain that the Change message belongs to him alone, while the Palin selection has shored up the base and allowed McCain to be more persistent in his own message of reform. Just when it seemed things couldn't go any worse, he compared the McCain-Palin record to "lipstick on a pig," and all hell broke loose. Now, "lipstick on a pig" is an ancient expression and is familiar to almost all Americans. That's why it's stunning that Obama's defenders point to an 11-month old quote to make Obama appear acceptable. Obama made his comment a little over a week after Sarah Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. The laughs in Obama's standard exalting audience were laughs of recognition. His supporters made the connection instantly, but Obama would have us believe that his brain trust failed to notice the possible gaffe.

con·text [kon-tekst]
–noun
1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

And Barry won't recover until he understands that.

Democrats offer a bushel of lies on corn ethanol

The theme of Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention was supposed to be "Renewing America's Promise," but it unsurprisingly degraded into a competition over who could mention Bush and McCain in the same sentence the most.

However, the prize for misrepresenting McCain's energy policy the most goes to Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa.

McCain has voted against tax credits for renewable energy 11 times, and his only idea to solve our energy crisis is to keep doing what we're doing, as we watch prices go up and up and up.

Culver's idea of "renewable energy" is corn ethanol, which is universally known to experts as a political tool to lure Iowans and other midwestern voters. John McCain called the corn industry out for the charlatans they are and as a result, he lost in Iowa in both the 2000 and 2008 primaries, and should probably brace himself to lose the Hawkeye State this time around as well. Between the soil degradation, inefficiency, and environmental impact of producing corn ethanol, corn-based fuel is neither renewable nor environmentally friendly.

Take the wording of a vote on tax credits for "renewable energy,"

To make energy more affordable and sustainable, to increase our national security through foreign oil replacement with biofuels and alternative fuels and advanced/hybrid vehicle use, to accelerate production and market penetration of clean and renewable energy technologies and generation, and to more fully utilize energy efficiency and conservation technologies and practices.

Needless to say, there are pretty open-ended standards as to what those represent. So when McCain's opponents repeatedly lie about his stance on renewable energy, remember that they are endorsing a dishonest corn lobby that not only misrepresents and inflates the benefits of corn ethanol, but has decimated American crop diversity and floods the market with cheap, unhealthy food additives. I don't need to remind you that Mr. Culver's state is ground zero for American corn production.

McCain's best shot, Palin and simple

One of the reasons I started this blog was to recognize the rising stars of the Republican party; the reformers and moderates who energize voters by promoting equality and tolerance while simultaneously fighting for fiscal responsibility. Sarah Palin embodies all of the aforementioned principles. Her leadership has provided Alaska, one of the most corrupt states in the Union, a hope for the future. She has provided this hope not through vague promises of a better future, but through practice.

Among her other achievements, Mrs. Palin pushed a comprehensive ethics bill that tightened loopholes around her fellow state officials. Some of its provisions include:

• Requiring legislators and legislative employees to disclose all boards on which they serve
• Increasing restrictions on employment after leaving service in the executive branch
• Barring political use of state aircraft except when that use is incidental
• Provides for forfeiture of certain pension contributions when an official is convicted of a felony such as bribery in connection with official duties

Take, for instance, Thundervision or the Boeing Tanker deal. In each case, the guilty parties continue to collect full retirement benefits. If Palin had the opportunity to battle corruption in Washington by stripping retirement benefits for crooked federal employees, it could have a dramatic chilling effect on procurement. Imagine Palin's war on corruption as an extension of McCain's crusade against pork barrel spending. It could lead to tangible change on the way our money is spent.

Additionally, Palin brings instant economic and energy credentials to the table. Slashing almost a third of the capital budget in her first year in office while supporting revenue sharing for local governments, Palin embodies a return to small government and restoring local responsibility.

On social issues, Palin satisfies the conservative wing with both her views and credentials on abortion. She knew early in her pregnancy that her son would be born with Down's syndrome, yet she demonstrated her commitment to life and pressed forward. Trig Paxson Palin was born on April 18th, 2008. While opposing gay marriage in her state, she eventually signed benefits for same-sex couples into law in Alaska.

These alone are more executive credentials than the Democratic party managed to submit for the 2008 election cycle. Mrs. Palin; a mother, wife, journalist, hunter, governor, and most importantly an agent of change. Senator McCain has a historic opportunity to have both members of his ticket be reform-minded Republicans in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt.

Is New York in play for McCain?

According to both the NY Post and the NY Sun, McCain is polling strongly enough in New York to justify putting the state in play.

... polling comes in the wake of a Siena College poll earlier this month that found Obama leading McCain among traditionally Democratic New York voters by a relatively meager 47 percent to 39 percent - down from 50 percent to 37 percent in July and 51 percent to 33 percent in June.

It should come as no surprise that McCain would be strong in Westchester, upstate, and Long Island; all traditional conservative strongholds that stand in contrast to 4 out of 5 boroughs of New York City. However, the fact that McCain is within 8 points in a state that hasn't gone Republican in over 20 years is a feat in itself. If McCain can continue to make overtures to security-minded Jews, he may have a shot at New York and its 31 electoral votes. However, it is a mistake to interpret this as a sign that he should put Joe Lieberman on the ticket.