Bill Manzi.com

The new “We can solve it” ad is out, and I have posted it here. Without question Al Gore draws some pretty heated responses, even on this blog. (Jules, this video is for you!) Some have said that the goals he outlines are unattainable, or to expensive to be implemented. A fair point for debate which leads me to a Tom Friedman op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times. Friedman writes on the Danish experience with energy, and it is eye opening. I concede up front that solutions that work in one country may not necessarily work in another, but I was struck by the Danish government rolling up their sleeves and implementing plans that have led to Danish energy self sufficiency. Beyond that the Danes have created jobs and growth by becoming a world leader in alternative energy. From Friedman:

“For example, the wind industry — it was nothing in the 1970s. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark.” In the last 10 years, Denmark’s exports of energy efficiency products have tripled. Energy technology exports rose 8 percent in 2007 to more than $10.5 billion in 2006, compared with a 2 percent rise in 2007 for Danish exports as a whole.

Not bad. And how about the Danish experience with imported energy.

In 1973, said Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero.”

A good op-ed piece, and one that brings us to the point. There has been no effort by our government to change the energy situation here in America. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Promote measures that conserve and promote alternatives to fossil fuels? Our government has done nothing, and allowed us to flounder to the point of endangering our national security. So when I hear that Gore is selling a pipe dream, I wonder what the alternative is. Bring more oil online? Maybe in the short term, but when will we we start thinking about the long term prospects for the United States if we continue on this road? My final thought for this posting is that Gore has been accused of promoting plans that will make energy prohibitively expensive. As we prepare for a winter that will have people unable to pay for home heating because it is so expensive I wonder who is really promoting unaffordable energy. Read the Friedman piece here.

The Internet certainly does add a new dimension to campaigning, with quick hitting ads posted and even quicker responses put up by the other side. John McCain here has some fun with some prominent Democrats, who are seen praising McCain when he was working across the aisle and infuriating Republicans across the country. Some nice words for McCain, who these days does not tend to get the same types of words from these Democrats.

And here comes a pretty fast response from the Obama camp, with many of the prior McCain praisers expressing “shock and dismay” over the wrong turns McCain has made since the days when he was praised for bipartisanship. I think both are not so effective, but certainly are good fun for political junkies. Enjoy!

John McCain continues to attack Barack Obama on the “celebrity issue”, coming out with a new ad that contrasts Obama’s “celebrity” with everyday Americans struggling to make ends meet. I have criticized the McCain effort up to this point as a mismash with no real “message” to impart, but he is shaping up in that regards, using ad after ad to portray Obama as an “elitist”, “not ready to lead”, and now as a tax hiker. The Republican talking points are starting to sink in, and some in the Obama camp fret that he is not being forceful enough in response. Is this ad effective, and is the theme of Obama the elitist starting to sink in? From Obama’s perspective do you think he needs a more forceful response quickly? I do, as I think Obama runs a risk here of being defined by McCain. We have seen Republican success at this level in defining Democratic candidates, leaving the dems scrambling to undo the damage and forever playing defense. Good ad for McCain.

John Edwards has admitted to an extramarital affair after apparently being ensnared by the National Enquirer. Edwards has acknowleged lying about the affair, and is the latest in a long line of pols who have been caught in similar situations. Edwards has issued a remorseful statement, and we must have some sympathy for Elizabeth. I know Edwards must take some legitimate criticism, but does he have no expectation of any privacy?

New pushing and shoving appears to be taking place between the camps of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the Democratic convention only a couple of weeks away new threats by the Clinton camp to enter Hillary’s name into nomination appear designed to bludgeon Obama on the issue of convention roles for the Clintons, as well as trying to force additional financial help from Obama to Clinton. Some news reports have Hillary expressing open dissatisfaction with the Obama teams help on finances, and Bill can’t quite bring himself to say Obama is “prepared” to be President.
Despite that it appears that Hillary will speak on Tuesday, and Bill Clinton will speak on Wednesday. And the camps are working towards an accomodation on the issue of a roll call vote with Hillary Clinton being entered into nomination. The principals themselves have given divergent statements on that issue. From the Washington Post:

“The best way I think to do that is to have a strategy so that my delegates feel like they’ve had a role and that their legitimacy has been validated,” she said. “It’s as old as Greek drama,” Clinton said. “There’s a catharsis. Everybody comes, and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that’s all to the good.”

Obama does not appear to be looking for a “catharsis” but rather for the best way forward for his candidacy.

But yesterday, Obama backed away from the idea of using a vote on the convention floor as a venting session.

“I’m letting our respective teams work out the details,” he told reporters on his campaign plane when asked about the convention standoff. “I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis. I think what we are looking for is energy and excitement about the prospects of changing this country, and I think that people who supported a whole range of different candidates during the primaries are going to come out of that convention feeling absolutely determined that we have to take the White House back.”

So Obama thinks that the convention ought to be designed with the nominee as the focal point. Apparently the Clinton’s disagree. They are engaging in a dangerous game here, and if the delicate balance that exists is thrown off there may be some who blame the Clintons. Obama is taking pains to downplay any rift.

Playing down the competing goals, Obama added: “I spoke to Senator Clinton this week. She’s campaigning for me in Nevada and Florida. She is very enthusiastic about the need for a unified party. I think we are going to have a terrific convention. As is true in all conventions, we’re still working out the mechanics of the four days. Our staffs are in communication, my staff with Senator Clinton’s staff. But I don’t anticipate any problems.”

There really is a limit to the type of pressure that the Clintons can apply. And I anticipate, after all the pushing and shoving, a unified convention that helps Obama. Anything less than that will have consequences for those that promote individual gain over party unity.

Is there some merit to the hybrid approach advocated by big thinker Paris Hilton? You be the judge.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is up in arms over an American Spectator report that Dick Cheney would not be attending the Republican convention. The McCain campaign, when asked about a Cheney invite, sidestepped the question, according to the Journal. I just cannot imagine why the McCain campaign would not want Vice President Cheney at this convention. The Journal, firm in their belief in the concept of preemptive strikes, announced that if Cheney were snubbed late night comedians would be speculating that “the missing Cheney must be at an undisclosed location”. I have to admit that the Journal is right about that one. Problem for the Republicans is that Cheney is no one joke Vice President. (Insert hunting joke here). The Journal talks Republican morale in their editorial:

If the Senator gives the impression that he agrees that Mr. Cheney is not fit for decent company , he’ll demoralize his friends and encourage his opponents.

Again I agree. It should be the goal of Democrats everywhere to see to it that Dick Cheney not only is invited, but given a prominent speaking role at this convention. It would be wrong of Senator McCain to snub Dick. Lets send the McCain camp some email on this, telling them that we want Cheney! And for more Cheney fun check out the new Obama website www.thenextcheney.com

Maybe that website will help you make your Republican selection in the VEEP sweeps contest here.

While the United States continues to spend billions of dollars on reconstruction of Iraq the Iraqi government is now showing a surplus of $79 billion, the result of increasing oil sales. From the New York Times:

Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.

With the United States running enormous deficits our spending in Iraq is from borrowed money, while the Iraqi’s continue to bank their expanding oil revenues. It is amazing to see the reckless disregard for any type of fiscal sanity here.

In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.

And our own infrastructure in the United States continues to crumble due to lack of money, and we are borrowing money to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure while they accumulate reserves???? This is good policy? Where are the fiscal hawks of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party? Oh, they are only against domestic spending. Senator Carl Levin (D) and Senator John Warner (R) issued a statement:

“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”

Yes that makes sense to me, but where is the action to stop U.S. spending on Iraqi infrastructure? The Iraqi’s claim that the new government has problems spending the money properly.

Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.

That is fine, but how about re-imbursing us for the money that we are spending? If they can’t spend it I am sure that they can transfer it to us. Another fiscal outrage! Read the New York Times story here.