I just can't wait for the campaign to be over. Even people who write well about the election, and Andy Busch does write well, are simply reworking the same arguments and issues, which comes to be like the turkey soup for the Sunday dinner after Thanksgiving that has followed Friday's turkey Tetrazzini and Saturday's turkey sandwiches. I say it's turkey and I say the hell with it. Poor y'all who have to write and think about presidential politics for a living. There's only so many ways you can rehash this business.

I might be able to get enthused about talk of cutting the federal deficit, but not if that includes raising taxes. McCain seems willing to embrace that idea. Talk about making people uneasy about the direction of the country! There's the way to do it.

Can't McCain just be quiet for a few months? "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise." or "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." or even "Loose lips sink ships" seem to apply.

Dear Sirs,

Interesting, but I think wrong. One of Obama's main campaign themes is that McCain = Bush. If Bush is vindicated by success in Iraq?

Regards,
Roy

The McCain = Bush theme is one that was previously developed in the 'O6 campaign, when the Dems tagged whatever Republican happened to be running in a race with Bush. Most notably, it worked against Santorum. Any time it looked like Santorum was about to surge into the lead, the Casey/Dem campaign would unleash a new ad, that didn't say much, but the visuals were of Santorum standing next to Bush. And within 24 hours, Santorum was down by 16.

It might not work against McCain though because of the Maverick theme that the media hyped during McCain's tenure in the Senate.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Dems/media were stymied in their efforts to taint McCain with Bush, and all because they loved to push the Maverick wedge against the wider GOP and the Conservative agenda by touting McCain over the years.

However the big news is the plummeting poll numbers of the false and fraudulent messiah.

Poor Dems, looks like they might not be getting those next two Supreme Court vacancies after all. Oh the humanity............

The whole drilling for oil business is no quick fix - any new U.S. operations would take a minimum of 7 years to get up and running, and the incumbent wouldn't even see any results (i.e., increase in supply)--even if he had two terms in office.

Nuclear power plants takes a bit longer than that to get going, but they're much more difficult to disrupt than pipelines in Alaska.

Everyone wants the deficit to be lowered, but we don't want to pay any new taxes. Guess what? It's time to pay up. Each of us has a share in the debt to the tune of about $30,000. We can continue to pay on credit, and let the grandkids deal with it (not a very conservative philosophy, if you ask me), or we can think about how to do more with less, which might include some serious consideration of a new urbanism, wherein we ditch the cars and take public transit with our neighbors or (gasp!) walk. This period of American exceptionalism cannot last much longer, but you'd think Republicans claim a Constitutional right to cheap energy--at least those who don't work for Exxon.

And why doesn't anyone seem to think that McCain needs to tackle health care in this country? Is it because his apparent senility reminds us of the magnitude of the impending geriatric crisis?

I don't mean to sound like Dr. Phil here, but it's time to get real.

Where does this "minimun 7 years" stuff come from besides the Dem talking points, which we've been hearing on the issue for longer than "7 years."

Time frame depends on the urgency with which we address the issue. Ordinarily USN Carriers take years to roll off the slipways and be readied for battle. But within 2 1/2 years of December 7th, 1941, we had a fleet looking for a showdown with the entire Japanese Imperial Navy.

See back then, business as usual was not allowed to be the order of the day. Nor should it be now.

This issue is all about urgency, who feels it, who's going to be motivated by it.

The 7 years figure comes from a close associate who does energy risk, and knows a thing or two about disruptions to supply.

I'm with you on the urgency thing, but you don't fight oil dependency by subsidizing it, and drilling in ANWR would not bring oil prices down significantly. I'm in favor of a space-race type mentality, but it's slightly longer-term thinking, and to finance it responsibly, we may have to cut back on commitments abroad. Let's throw our best and brightest behind alternative forms of energy--heck, treat it as a matter of national security--it is. But something's gotta give, and we need to get beyond the pressured decisions that keep us at the level of critical demands. Drilling in Alaska + another hurricane around Texas = no net gain.

Okay, seven years till real results from drilling. How long till real results from "alternative energy forms," and what form did you have in mind? How much retro-fitting will we have to do with ALL the machines, including all of our cars, before alternative energy sources work out? No doubt about it, finding alternative energy sources is a dandy idea - I know a young engineer with a beaut of a hydrogen booster for any old car that makes his personal gas consumption about a quarter of mine - but how long before such things get to market? Drilling, even at the seven years range, is the short-term energy need and our only option at the moment, no matter what the price.