Solutions to the impending energy crisis have been
slow-coming from Washington
due to partisan infighting in Congress- republicans rallying behind the
“increase supply” mantra and pushing for drilling; democrats relying on the
economic alternative “decrease demand” and pushing forth an environmentalist
agenda focused on alternative energy sources and public transportation.
Instead of working towards increasing supply by exploring America’s
drilling options and building its additional refinery capabilities,
environmentalists and liberals alike tout now as the time to develop
alternative sources of energy.While
this development would be very positive for working to alleviate American’s oil
addiction, the alternative energy options are just that: developing.Our long-term goals should certainly include
weaning America
off oil; our short-term goals need to include producing more oil to more
immediately ease the pain felt by the economy.
Yet liberals oppose drilling in America due to the purported
environmental repercussions.Drilling in
ANWR would spoil the pristine condition of the unspoiled land and would disrupt
the natural wildlife and animal inhabitants of the area- same with exploring
shale oil in the Rockies.Mentioning offshore drilling conjures
references to the Santa Barbara
oil spill in ’69.Not only are
additional refineries considered unneeded, but the damage done by pollution
would be unnecessary.Yet how fair are
these arguments?The Clean Air Act,
amended in 1990, stringently regulates permits for and restricts emissions by
nuclear facilities and oil refineries.The Santa Barbara backlash led to improved offshore drilling facilities
across the industry that has yet to see another environmental disaster, more
than 30 years later.
While the work environmental agencies undertake is important
for protecting the earth against pollution, America needs to examine a
cost-benefit analysis of delaying immediate oil relief to appease these groups.The oil crisis is costing the U.S.
deeply, with severe economic repercussions as well as compromising political
implications.While urban areas offer
access to various means of public transportation, rural areas often don’t have
the infrastructure necessary to realistically implement a reliance on mass
transit- as a result, citizens in these areas have been bearing the brunt of
the impact of the oil emergency.Also,
the damage done to industries across the spectrum guarantee that the average U.S. citizen
will pay for the oil crisis- whether it’s airline prices rising, grocery prices
rising, shipping prices rising- one thing is clear: prices are rising.Coupled with this increase in prices is a
decrease in jobs; the automobile industry is facing rapid downsizing as well as
the transportation industry.
The political implications to the oil crisis are dire as
well.Congressman Mike Rogers [R, MI-8]
stated in a recent presentation on America’s
energy dependence that “…We send [Saudi Arabia] 40 million dollars
every single day.We send the Russians
about 220 million dollars every single day. We send Hugo Chavez about 180
million dollars every single day.These
are people who don’t clearly think all that highly of us.”America’s dependence on foreign oil
gives billions of U.S. dollars to countries we’d otherwise describe as our
rivals or even enemies.Not to mention
the oil-rich Middle East- it’s in the U.S.’s best interest to be capable
of supporting its own oil addiction.
America
has the resources to rescue the tumbling economy while preventing the soaring
gas prices- yet these solutions to the oil problem are prohibited by
environmental groups spearheading campaigns for polar bears, wielding images of
oil-soaked seagulls, and predicting a dire global meltdown.
To read more about the energy protests of the Republican Congressmen on the House floor, click: here. or here.
Where is the Red? - a group dedicated to telling the truth about the alleged youth vote- reported about a CNN story (which can be found: here) which widely questions McCain's ability to appeal to young voters. The story quotes an Eric Perlmutter, "a Republican and student at the at the University of Southern California," making disparaging statements about McCain's lack of popularity on campus compared with Obama.
However, 'Where is the Red?' asserts this source was fabricated. Their announcement is as follows:
Yesterday, CNN released a story claiming that no young voter would support John McCain for President. They spoke to one Eric Perlmutter, a "College Republican" at the
University of Southern California, who said, "We try to get people out
to our College Republican meetings, but we can't seem to get the same
amount of support."
The only problem? None of CNN's reporting is true, and we called them out on it.
Ben Myers, the president of the USC College Republicans, has never seen
Perlmutter in his life. He said, "As far as I know, he could be a
Democrat." (LA Times, 7/24/08)
In fact, this whole story could be phony. No Eric Perlmutter is
affiliated with the USC College Republicans, though there is a CNN
producer named Bruce Perlmutter. Even worse, some of Perlmutter's
quotes are taken directly from a story in the Washington Post! (The blog CitizenSugar has the whole story.)
While the mainstream media publishes fiction about fake College Republicans, four real College Republicans are working their way across America telling the truth about the youth vote.
Fox and Hounds Daily, a site dedicated to "keeping tabs on California business and politics," published a story by Michael Antonopoulos, Chairman of California Students for McCain. Antonopoulos states as follows:
Yesterday morning, I awoke to concerning news – someone claiming to be
linked to Students for McCain and the USC College Republicans had been
quoted by CNN as stating that McCain does not appeal to youth,
Republicans included, and will struggle to carry the youth vote on both
sides of the aisle. The CNN story was one of the top headlines on their
website, and even made the front page of Yahoo.
Later in the day, CNN posted a video clip of the interview, showing
supposed College Republican Eric Pearlmutter elaborating on how Senator
McCain was far less appealing to young voters, and as a result, how the
College Republicans at USC were having trouble getting students to even
attend their meetings.
Right off the bat, something seemed a bit off – given the fact that
USC is currently not in session, it was strange to have a College
Republican commenting on meeting attendance, and I hadn’t ever met the
individual in the CNN article and video despite working closely with
leaders at our USC chapter in the past.
Confirming our suspicions with two of our contacts at the campus,
USC College Republicans Chairman Ben Meyers and California College
Republicans Chairwoman Cheyenne Steel (daughter of F&H Blogger
Michelle Steel), we found that Mr. Perlmutter was not, and had never
been, a member of the USC organization. No one affiliated with the
chapter that I spoke with had even heard of him prior to the
publication of the CNN article, and there was no record of him ever
attending a College Republicans meeting.
Students for McCain’s California youth effort has so far been a huge
success, with our membership growing every week. I do concede that
Senator Obama has an obvious appeal to a good portion of the youth
vote. However, Students for McCain, throughout the state and at our USC
chapter, has proven that there is active and growing support in the
youth electorate for Senator McCain as well.
We chose to respond yesterday afternoon by issuing a press release
to media outlets throughout the state -- as seasoned veterans of the
press along with a handful of political bloggers took note of the
obvious discrepancy and began to investigate, a lot more was revealed.
Theories began multiplying at a startling pace -- They ranged from
standard accusations of CNN carrying a liberal bias to an investigative
claim that Mr. Perlmutter was in fact a relative of a CNN producer who
was used to fabricate quotes for the purpose of the story. Although it
is too premature to speculate on CNN’s motivations in this matter, the
bad press forced them to ‘admit an error’ via the Los Angeles Times
Political Blog and invite the Students for McCain Chair at USC to tell
his side of the story on an upcoming edition of their morning show.
I don't think the real question is why they chose to fabricate a source to hurt McCain's campaign. I think the real question is how shameless CNN intends to be in promoting their political agenda over actual factual reporting.
The Republican congressman are protesting Pelosi's refusal to vote on the "American Energy Act"- a bill focused on gas price relief for you. Instead of recessing as Pelosi's called, they are staying in the House as a protest. Friday most of the GOP remained in the House, old-school hippy sit-in style, and the following is the iternary, so far, of what the congressmen/women are doing and have done today:
10:10 a.m.- Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) offered this morning's prayer. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) led the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
10:16 a.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
10:20 a.m.- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
10:27 a.m.- Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
10:32 a.m.- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
10:44 a.m.- Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
10:50 a.m.- Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
10:55 a.m.- Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
11:00 a.m.- Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL)
11:06 a.m.- Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
11:13 a.m.- Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
11:26 a.m.- Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)
11:33 a.m.- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
11:37 a.m.- Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
11:45 a.m.- Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
11:50 a.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
11:57 a.m.- Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH)
12:02 p.m.- Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
12:16 p.m.- Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
12:20 p.m.- Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
12:27 p.m.- Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
12:43 p.m.- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
12:53 p.m.- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
1:04 p.m.- Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
1:36 p.m.- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
1:53 p.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
1:58 p.m.- Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
2:02 p.m.- Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
2:17 p.m.- Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
2:33 p.m.- Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
2:45 p.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
2:52 p.m.- Rep. Phill Gingrey (R-GA)
3:13 p.m.- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
3:22 p.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
3:27 p.m.- Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
3:36 p.m.- Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
3:39 p.m.- Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
3:53 p.m.- Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
3:57 p.m.- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
4:07 p.m.- Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
4:14 p.m.- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
4:20 p.m.- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) delivered closing remarks.
4:25 p.m.- Debate concluded for the day.
Expect future updates. Above is the list of congressmen/women who care about you.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) said the following in a speech at Heritage yesterday:
"I look at Ed with a great deal of envy with his full head of hair. I have, uh, had a little bout with Hodgkin's, and one of the consequences of Hodgkins is, uh, you lose all your hair. But it comes back, and I'm now finding more interest in my hair styling than I am in my positions on a couple of policy.
I have a lot of correspondents suggesting I wear a toupee, some of the correspondents suggest that I shave my head and become a sex symbol- excuse me, what's so funny about that young lady?- but I rejected that idea for two reasons:
Lee Stranahan, blogger carried by the Huffington Post (yes, I said that, the Huffington Post), wrote a blog about the coverage on the alleged John Edwards' affair scandal, or, to be more specific, the lack of coverage on-as he puts it- "the tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party." Evidently Stranathan's observations didn't land him in the popular table at lunch today among his liberal counterparts.
He writes:
How's it going to play out? It seems to me that this is going to be
a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party and right now the
coming typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking. We're at the
point of calm before the big waves hit but there are signs of the
impending deluge. Jay Leno is making jokes about it. Perez Hilton is on
the story. The mainstream media is fairly quiet but the most ominous
silence right now is from the progressive blogosphere.
The progressive blogosphere is ignoring this story at its own peril
because it's going to be big. At this moment, there's a weird state of
denial about the entire thing. As of 4pm Saturday, nothing at all on
TalkingPointMemo.com. DailyKos did a dismissive post making fun of the
Enquirer. FireDogLake? Nothing. Americablog? Nada. These are some of my
favorite blogs, by the way.
The Huffington Post has at least hovered about the edges of the
story as it's been unfolding. There have been a couple of half-hearted,
nothing-to-see-here blogs but also news reports on the latest events. A
blog by John McQuaid said
that there's no "physical evidence a la Bill Clinton." Well, there's a
baby. Not a stained dress left to hang in the closest for a few months
but a real cooing, smiling little baby who I assume looks adorable on
camera and probably has nice hair. That lil' tyke is stuffed full of
DNA, too. Cute little DNA.
Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former
Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President
less than six months ago and is now on the short list for Vice
President has an long affair during the campaign and fathers a child,
covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the
child. News! Oh -- and his wife made regular appearances on the
campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer. If it were Mitt
Romney, you'd be hearing peels of laughter and the satisfying smacking
sound of Merlot and Starbucks fueled high fives coming from the nearest
blue state. Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course
it would...with funny pictures and as many self-satisfied comments as
you can shake a Macbook Air at.
It's a juicy story that has so many elements that are easy hooks for
those short segments on cable news where two people argue while the
news anchor asks softball questions. Here's a quick list of all the
story angles I can think of just off the top of my head.
John Edwards Matters This isn't a Mike Gravel
affair. (Sorry to put that image in your head.) John Edwards been the
conscience of the Democratic Party this primary season and a compelling
presence speaking out on the growing gap between rich and poor. If he
wasn't going to be Vice President, most Democrats wanted him somewhere
in an Obama cabinet.
Video Clips Galore! Cable news loves showing video
clips, usually in looping montages. Those webisodes that Hunter made
that were taken down? They look flirty and suspicious in light of the
alleged affair.
It's Fresh The Edwards affair happened during the
primary campaign. This isn't ancient history. What if he's WON the
primary? Would he really have taken the nomination and handed the race
to McCain?
Primary Revisionism Will the affair change the way
we look back on the primary? Why did Edwards drop out of the race so
quickly? Why did Edwards not endorse anyone until his endorsement was a
moot point? Endless debates will ensue.
DNA! The press loves any story with DNA. Drama! DNA
test refusals. Acceptance. Test goes out. What will happen? It's like
Montel Williams but it takes weeks!
Democratic Convention in Denver happening soon. Will Edwards speak? Will he appear at all? What about Elizabeth? Oh, the drama. You'll see.
"How could he do that to his sick wife?" This whole thing doesn't play well with women voters. Or women non-voters. Or men.
"Should we care about politician's sex lives?" Whatever your answer, that's a hook for the press. As soon as the story
reaches a big tipping point, the mainstream press will question the
story.
"Liberal media bias" - here's the big one.
Republicans have had a lot of embarrassing, juicy sex scandals of their
own lately and boy, do they want some payback. It doesn't look good
that the Los Angeles Times banned bloggers from discussing the story. Where's the Times investigation -- seems like the story is in their backyard. And that
silence you hear from the mainstream press right now? The GOP is going
to "play the refs" and jump all over the media for not reporting or
investigating this story. The media will eventually break down and do
what they do - saturate us with the story they missed just to prove how
unbiased they really are.
Bush won't endorse McCain because of the negative backlash involved, so I won't endorse Stranahan (who's voting for Obama, anyways). But at any rate I thought it groundbreaking to see a liberal blogger commenting on the lack of media coverage due to its liberal bias.
In my opinion, Ben Stein's most famous line goes something like "Buehler?... Buehler?..." but his comments on Obama's speech in Germany while on Glenn Beck's show were at the very least entertaining.
Media Matters transcribed the conversation as follows:
STEIN:
I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of
Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering
people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America.
We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well,
that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think
whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very
unfortunate images from the past.
BECK:
Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that
we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever.
STEIN:
Well, I think --
BECK: I
mean it's crazy.
STEIN:
It's a scary situation. I mean, I think he has to recognize some bounds
on his own ego. I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego
deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and
adulation and adoration. But 75,000 people screaming at an outdoor arena,
that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily
authoritarian.
After spending the afternoon moping around in disgust and
fear over Barack Obama’s comments at a press conference in the Middle East, I
finally found some consolation. The Washington Post’s Max Boot provides an
excellent analysis of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s supposed “support”
of Obama’s 16 month timetable for withdrawal of troops from the country.
In the same way Obama deftly sidesteps the issues on which
he is clearly wrong, like the troop surge being responsible for restoring order
to Iraq,
Boot suggests that Maliki’s statement is simply a political one, not a correct
one.
Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience
and that he has been trapped in the Green
Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has
been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces
could leave.
In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he
claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi
provinces within a year and a half."
In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of
control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months"
before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio
entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."
President
Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he
sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall
Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
flatly told Gen. George
Casey, the top American
military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel
deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the
surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news
accounts as "lukewarm."
In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki
predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American
troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of
control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of
security in every province by the end of the year.
Even now, when the success of the surge is undeniable,
Maliki won't give U.S.
troops their due. In the famous interview with Der
Spiegel last weekend, he was asked why Iraq has become more peaceful. He
mentioned "many factors," including "the political rapprochement
we have managed to achieve," "the progress being made by our security
forces," "the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has
reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias," and "the economic recovery." No mention of
the surge.
Somebody sounds a lot like Obama, doesn’t he? It gets
better.
Maliki's public utterances do not
provide a reliable guide as to when it will be safe to pull out U.S. troops.
Better to listen to the military professionals. The Post recently quoted Brig.
Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We
hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's
defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full
responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until
2018.
The fact is, other than Maliki’s brazen, outspoken comments
about withdrawal of American troops by 2010, most Iraqi’s release that certain
factors have to met, especially a confidence in Iraqi police and military
forces to protect the country and its people.
For my introductory blog post, I thought it would be wise to
get out into the open my feelings about blogs. And no one has ever summarized
those feelings better than Washington Post sports columnist Norman Chad.
I know most of my colleagues here at AIM don’t feel so
strongly about the Post, and prefer the towns other major daily, the Washington
Times, but I’ve read the Post daily since middle school and will probably be
sharing articles from their website often.
Without any further comment, Norman Chad:
With each passing day, I am aware
that I am 24 hours closer to death and 24 hours closer to blogging.
(I believe it was Benjamin Franklin
who once wrote, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except
death and taxes and blogs.")
I recently was asked to start a
sports blog -- I'll get back to that a bit later. Right now, I just want to
calm the masses. My older friends are railing against blogs and my younger
friends are running to them. I'd like to remind fans of all ages of a couple of
thoughts:
· Blogs are not the end of
the world as we know it; rather, they are an extension of a world we've always
known.
· If you're thinking of
starting a blog, don't; the world needs more blogs like Madonna needs
more leather.
I avoided blogs as long as I could.
Some of them make me smile -- http://thebiglead.com is my favorite -- but many
send me seeking cover in the corner of the shed, particularly the commenter
sections.
Blogging comes in the form of the
written word, but blogging is writing about as much as working the pole is
dancing. Blogging is more of a one-way conversation than anything else, a
neighbor who bangs on your door in the morning to complain about the fella down
the street who won't cut his front lawn.
Blogging, essentially, is talk radio
on steroids.
(During my somewhat checkered and
sordid career, I have turned down offers to do sports talk radio several times,
primarily for three reasons: I would get tired of the sound of my own voice
within a month, I cannot fathom having that many opinions every single day and
I like to sleep in.)
At least the talk-radio host, after
three or four hours of public proclamations, shuts down. But blogs are like 7-Eleven:
They have a bunch of stuff you usually don't need and they never close.
The blogger can -- and often does -- operate at any time of day or night.
Flip Saunders can't coach? Let me
tell everyone how I feel!
Another blown save from Francisco
Cordero? Let me tell everyone how I feel!
Just had a rare, late-afternoon
bowel movement? Let me tell everyone how I feel!
If a blogger were sitting next to
you in a bar, you'd stop drinking.
Now, all this blogging and
bloviating raises a question: Are we more opinionated than generations past?
To answer that, I'd pose another
question: Are we more violent than our ancestors?
Probably not. But the means of
violence have become more destructive. First there were rocks, then the
bow-and-arrow, then guns, shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, cannons, grenades,
tanks, bombs and, ultimately, nuclear arms.
Similarly, we always were
passionate about our sports teams, but the means in which we can express that
passion has changed.
In the 1930s, you might sit on your
front stoop and argue; in the 1960s, you might write a letter to the editor; in
the 1990s, you might call in to talk radio; nowadays, you go online and vent.
The Internet is the virtual-reality
version of the A-bomb.
Our culture traditionally has spent
too much time and energy on sports; blogging is simply a technological
extension of this tiresome phenomenon.
So, yeah, I recently said no to
starting a sports blog. Who wants more of me, other than couples
counselors? And why would I want to pollute an already polluted blogosphere?
As for those of you who insist on
blogging on, I just ask that you be more kind and gentle, less cutting and
snide.
(Sure, I know, Couch Slouch calling
someone snarky is like Charles Manson calling someone macabre. But we all can
change -- 37 years in the joint might've reformed Mr. Helter Skelter just as 37
years on the sofa have reformed me.)
Besides, I'm figuring there are no
blogs in heaven. Then again, I'm probably looking at purgatory, and http://firejoemorgan.com
might make it a bit less insufferable.
Let's get one thing straight: an American Messiah probably wouldn't have listened to Jeremiah Wright all those years without throwing down some tables in the courtyard of the church. Politics isn't the best choice of profession for a Messiah either, but carpentry seems pretty widely accepted as a solid stepping stone. On the other hand, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors and (reformed) prostitutes; Obama has friends like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. Yet when Jesus was 13, he wowed biblical scholars with his understanding of complex theology- Obama hasn't shown that yet. In fact, just the opposite...
Dave Weldon wrote the following in a piece entitled "Obama is Just Another Politician":
What we know about the mind
of Barack Obama today is not encouraging. There are gaping holes in
his basic knowledge of history, government and economics. He said that
Arabic was the language of Afghanistan. He said that the United States
has 57 states. He said that Canada has a president, instead of a prime
minister. He doesn't understand the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not convey
his orders to the command structure. But this sort of profound
ignorance never affects candidates who appeal to emotion and not to
intellect, which is to say, most politicians. And Barack Obama is
nothing more than another politician.
I'm tired of hearing about Barack Obama's latest 'hope and change' monologue, I'm tired of seeing Michelle Obama on vacuous entertainment magazines, and I'm tired of the promises of a new kind of politics mixed with the reality of an old kind of mudslinging.
In short, I want more McCain.
I want to hear him talk about how his extensive military experience, and his ugly POW days, help him to understand the brutalities of maintaining the war in Iraq and give him the insight to better understand how to handle a war. I want to hear him talk about his time as a Senator for Arizona for over 20 years, and how his involvement in the political system makes him a solid political player capable of handling a presidency. I want to know more about Cindy McCain, the all-but-invisible wife we hear nothing from, and know nothing about. To date, all that's evident is that she's younger than John, classy, and good-looking. When does Cindy go on The View? When do we get to know more about her?
The bad news is, McCain had a solid three months while Hillary and Obama duked it out that he wasted. Mostly quiet, he didn't utilize the opportunity as the Republican candidate to build the base he could have. The good news is, it looks like he's stepping up the campaign front. Hopefully we get to see some improvements in his public speaking ability, hopefully he comes out swinging on some of the more important political issues du jour- gas prices, etc. At the end of the day however, I want to hear more about McCain. I want to see starry-eyed reporters worshipping his every move like the liberal media has done for Obama; I want to see more of Cindy; and I want to see him bank on his experience to effectively market the qualifications he brings to the table.
