Redstate

I have committed to vote for McCain. I will. I absolutely want to prevent an Obama presidency.

That being said, why the hell would I do anything more than go vote, i.e. volunteer and/or donate money for this guy when he rolls out an insane anti-growth, anti-free-market environmental agenda like this.

Again, I totally understand the rationale. He wants to be viewed as a "different kind of Republican", one that is independent from Bush. Ok, I agree with that. But there are ways to do that without proposing to wreck our economy with a cap-and-trade scam.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I'm just having a hard time putting it into practice. My head says I should, but my wallet refuses to open and the jury is still out on the actual vote. Plus, arguing that I should choose McCain because he is the lesser of two evils is hardly inspiring - more depressing than anything else.

Here is where I believe in Change.

Donate to candidates downstream from McCain and work for them.

In England between the World Wars, there was a lot of support within the Foreign Office for the idea of supporting Nazi Germany as way of holding back the spread of International Socialism (the Soviet Union).

Winston Churchill was opposed to this, and was basically forced out of politics over it. It was assumed by most that his career was over. He was quoted as saying that you don't set a murderer to protect you from a theif.

Personally, I see the Democrat's stand on abortion to be murder, but I see McCain-Feingold to be theft. So the question becomes, do you set a theif to protect you from a murderer?
____________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

between a murderer and a mass murderer. I keep asking myself 'why can't we just shoot them both?' and keep being told it isn't civil to ask that question.

Giving the Soviets what they wanted in order to stop the Nazis. Both Churchill and Roosevelt screwed over the Polish government in exile (based in London), the Polish Underground (the most active resistance movement in the war), and the Polish Army (which fought all over the place in Africa and Europe).

I am a big Churchill fan, so my "criticism" is intended in an overallframework of hero-worship.

Read "Rising '44" by Norman Davies, but make sure you have some hard alcohol handy.

This is where McCain mistakens stubborness as courage and courage as a poltical principle. Thus McCain will make some grand stand and thhink he's being principled and courageous and resisting pressure from the "far right wing" and "corporate lobbyists" when all he is doing is being stupid idiot. And I won't be deterred from calling an idiot and idiot.

Hey Mac, your an idiot.

Only advnaces the cause of the extremists.
As energy becomes more and more the defining issue of our day, I am more and more disappointed in McCain.

What has the H1 visa program have to do with free trade?? To call migration of people free trade is a little extreme.

In a fundamental economic sense, free trade includes the mobility of labor (as well as goods and services) across borders, too.

My problem with McCain (and amnesty) is that it rewards illegal behaviour. In that, I think I agree with most on this board. In fact, I do think that illegals who are caught should be deported; even if they have family (including children) who are in the country legally.

However, I probably disagree with most here in that I actually support more legal immigration. Truthfully, that is what makes the most economic sense.

And whatever your position on immigration, legal or illegal, we will always have problems as long as we have a minimum wage. The minimum wage creates a market for illegal workers. That's the issue that no one is willing to face.

I have no problem with comprehensive immigration reform as long as we ensure that this is the last time we do this. Reagan's amnesty plan failed because it granted amnesty and failed to cut off the flow of illegals. I think that we need to secure the border, building a fence virtual and real across the Canadian and Mexican border as well as provide amnesty for illegal workers that are here. I'm fine with amnesty as long as we can guarantee that this is it. I would deport every single illegal alien who has committed a crime-but for those who haven't, I'm fine with letting them stay-the idea that we are going to be able to deport 20 million people is absurd to say the least.

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

As long as there is a minimum wage, we create a market for workers who will initially work for less than that wage. That creates a market for more illegal workers.

Thus, this comprehensive immigration reform -- or any comprehensive immigration reform -- does not address the real issue. And a fence, which I actually personally support, will not address that real issue. Thus in twenty-odd years we will be discussing the next round of comprehensive immigration reform that, because there will be another 20-30 million illegal immigrants, will also include some sort of amnesty program.

You do make a point about the impracticality of deporting 20 million illegals today but there must be some way to transfer the "cost" of illegals coming here back to the illegals themselves. Though, again, it does not address the underlying economic issue, it would server some positive function. Make it more "costly" to be here and fewer will come. Personally, I think deportation is a necessary step in that.

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

The fence is a national security issue, not an immigration issue, so let the federal government build the fences. Then as far as deportation and illegal immigration go, why should the federal government get involved at all. Here's what I don't get-some conservatives want to be federalists on their issues. If New York City wants to be a sanctuary city-what does it matter to the people in Texas or Indiana. If California wants to deport all of it's illegal aliens, then let California vote and pay for that cost. It makes no sense to deal with comprehensive immigration on a federal level-each state knows its illegal immigration problem and the most cost effective way to deal with it state by state. What would be more effective would be for the federal government to simply say we're taking our hands off of this issue and letting the states handle it in their own way. I would almost guarantee that the states are going to be tougher and more efficient than the feds who are trying to do one giant swooping one size fits all reform to a complex state by state problem.

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

Because issues of citizenship is a Federal issue. The people of New York City or the state of California can neither define who is or who is not a citizen nor ignore the Federal laws addressing the definition, privileges and immunities thereof. Even as a Federalist myself I think it is fortunate that the United States Constitution formed a stronger Federal authority than the Articles of Confederation.

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

Criminal laws are up to the states. Also, I just don't see how a federal solution works-should the people in Kansas pay to deport California's illegal immigrants? Fiscally, that's a horrible solution and one that's going to hit everyone in their pocketbooks. I think the Tancredo nativist wing hasn't fully thought through what it would cost to actually deport every illegal immigrant like they want-the cost to the American people would be enormous. In a spiraling economy, do you want to take even more money out of the pockets of the American people?

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

When you break a Federal law you have committed a Federal crime. State criminal laws are enforced by the state but Federal criminal laws are enforced by the Federal government. If the Federal government has the authority to make laws addressing citizenship, which it does, then it has the authority to enforce those laws.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong here.

But as to your point about the costs of deporting illegals, you have a good point. Yes, it is expensive. Personally, I am against Tancredo (and Hunter's) nativism -- remember, I do support greater legal immigration -- and oppose the "rounding up" of illegal immigrants but I do believe crimes should be punished. My position is that when an ilegal immigrant is found, they should be automatically deported.

One argument against my position is that it would force illegals "more underground" but my response is, "So what." It would increase the economic cost of being an illegal immigrant in America and would hopefully discourage illegal immigrants from coming here.

Note also that I support penalties against those that hire illegal immigrants, whether "knowingly" or not. I think this also increases the economic cost of being an illegal immigrant and discourages the activity.

But note, as I said before, unless we are willing to address the minimum wage and the general cost of employment in the United States, I will be the first one to admit that there is no real solution to the issue.

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

Let me just address the forcing illegals underground. Rudy declared sanctuary to illegals so they could report crimes without fear of deportation-and it was proved to work. This is my whole problem with it, because I look at Rudy's proven, working strategy that reformed and rebuilt New York City, and then I look at a lot of hypothetical scenarios on what we could do with illegal immigrants. I say we grant amnesty based on the fact that I would rather reduce violent crime across the board than deport someone for being born on the wrong side of the fence 20 years ago. Penalize them sure-fine them, make them learn English, make them pay back taxes, all acceptable solutions. But deportation is going to lead to unreported crimes in the areas where illegal immigration is highest-in the cities. This isn't just a rural problem-this is a problem in New York City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, San Fransisco. How do you reduce crime in heavily crime ridden areas if people are afraid to report it. I think it's more important to clean up the cities than to bow to the nativists.

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

How do you reduce crime in heavily crime ridden areas if people are afraid to report it.

Deport them. The first crime they committed is to come here illegally, whether it was twenty years ago or yesterday. At the risk of sounding like an ogre, if they are in such fear and distress because they now live in such high crime areas, then they can go back to where they illegally came from. Let them bear the economic cost of the crime they create and endure for coming here illegally.

I'm sorry, but worrying about crime suffered by illegal immigrants is a little like worrying that the drug dealer might short-change an addict in a drug deal. Which could be a situation we're talking about among illegals.

But the truly interesting thing here is that you (who says you will not vote for him) are the one defending McCain's position, not me (who will).

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

I think the Tancredo nativist wing hasn't fully thought through what it would cost to actually deport every illegal immigrant like they want-the cost to the American people would be enormous. In a spiraling economy, do you want to take even more money out of the pockets of the American people?

About the only people who ever talk about deporting all the illegals are the ones who are against it and who favor comprehensive reform. It is a strawman that they love to set-up and kick down.

Most people (the Tancredo/Hunter Natavists) who are serious about an enforcement only approach to illegal immigration favor a strategy of "attrition through enforcement". The government should obviously deport all illegal alien criminals it encounters and it should also deport any illegal aliens it happens to arrest in workplace raids. But the real effort should be on workplace enforcement aimed at the employers who are giving them jobs. If there is no work then the illegals will leave of THEIR OWN FREEWILL, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE and for the same reason they came which will be for A BETTER LIFE.

There are several current examples of this strategy working quite effectively. Prince Williams, Va, Oklahoma and Arizona all come to mind with reports of illegal leaving these places in droves. And there has been very little public money spent to date in any of those places to achieve great results.

And making illegals leave does not take money out of people's pockets but rather puts it back in. It takes a cheap labor subsidy away from businesses and relieves taxpayers of the cost of paying for education, healthcare and justice for the not really so cheap labor.

So much for the strawman!

Even if the enforcement only types really did want all the illegals deported at taxpayer expense (which is not what we are asking for) it would be a bargain at twice the price!

Julie Myers recently testified before Congress that the cost of finding, prosecuting and deporting 12 million illegals would be $94 billion. But Robert Rector put the cost of the McCainneddy Shamnesty at $2.6 trillion which is an order of magnitude (plus change) greater.

So it seems that the Tancredo bashing comprehensive reform types are the ones who have really not thought things through and are the ones that are wanting to lay a major cost on taxpayers.

I could be that friend. Those are my two biggest McCain beefs. But I will be voting for him, barring a complete McCain implosion. A vote for anyone else is a vote for the Obamination.

It will not help produce a single BTU of energy, it simply makes the existing BTU's more expensive while doing absolutely NOTHING useful.

Frankly energy is costly enough as is, increasing the cost simply damages the economy.

So much for shrinking the government.

And when the government is involved, most of the time it does hurt to be green.
--------------------

Small is beautiful.

I don't even want to go into the stupidity of Kyoto.

I desagree vehemently with thhe inference that giving a little ground to the Enviro-Nazis is OK, since doing so is harmless and might even do the world a little good.

On two fronts I want you to consider the consequences of the Greening of America:

--needness regulation is economically burdensome. If you've EVER owned your own business or been involved closely with someone who does, it comes down to this: the government just REACHES into your pocket and takes money out, for no good reason

--poorly thought-out regulation is dangerous. CAFE standards = increased highway deaths. Need I say more?

I give no ground. Not one inch.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

(I didn't want you to have to wait too long).

Sigh. I share your frustrations, just not your conclusion. I can't do anything that will let Barak near a Supreme Court Nomination.

At this point, Barack Obama as president is more scary to me than Hillary Clinton.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Part D and NCLB were bad enough.

The house and senate will go even more blue and the very last thing we need is a unified blue in the executive as well.

I have never voted for McCain before here in AZ (and I've had 3 chances to do so) but I will take a stiff drink and do so in November for 1 reason only, it is the absolute lesser of 2 evils.

Please do the same, because we do share the same attitudes.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Of the vote this year might not be such a bad Idea.

If the GOP wants to be Democrat lite so be it.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

h/t to realitybasedbob for this comment.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

From http://sayanythingblog.com/

...and continues to fail him.

You might be a little light on that number if this becomes the official GOP line.

Perhaps so, but the fact remains that right now a 3rd party is not a viable option. And while I would be down for a 3rd party, I also prefer to not be inconsequential to the whole governing process.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Then currently you are inconsequential to the whole governing process. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats is interested in your ideas in the slightest, they just want your vote and money.

And as long as you keep giving them either, you'll stay that way, because they have no incentive to change.

inconsequential is ceasing to participate. Being involved, while perhaps not getting exactly what I prefer is considerably more important then avoiding the process. After all, refusing to vote is tacit approval of the other side, and a 3rd party, no matter how good it makes one feel is a losing proposition.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

a mere Kennedy. That difference alone would be significant.

Even replacing Ginsburg with a less radical leftist will do a lot to change the court.

why do you have a 'Rudy' sticker?
What conservative in the hunt has a name of 'Rudy'?

Also I'm no SoCon, but I am a federalist like Rudy and Fred, and I don't support expanding the federal government to overlook someone's moral values. Overturn Roe, but then let the states decide, and the same with marriage. I'm as conservative as you can get on everything else-if it was up to me, we'd be looking at a shell of the federal government in the form of Cutting the Department of Ed, cutting the EPA, cutting farm subsidies, ending earmarks, deregulating environmental restrictions, overturning NCLB and enacting school choice, building the fence, setting up a military blockade along the entire Canadian and Mexican border, ending the War on Drugs, cutting taxes, extending conceal carry laws to all fifty states as well as the Castle amendment, pushing constructionists in the mold of Clarence Thomas through the Supreme Court, privatizing SS, ending Medicare D, grossly slashing food stamps, bombing the h*ll out of Iran, finsihing off Iraq and Afghanistan and an expanded and better funded military. In addition, I'd be for smacking the Democrats like a redheaded stepchild every time they tried to get in the way. Now is that conservative enough for you? By the way, I was originally a Fredhead-no one else was willing to fight the Democrats in the way Rudy was.

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

for you! Amen, brother, and can I have an allelujia!!

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I have no intention of voting for McCain. I am just as opposed to the "moderate" wing of the Republican party as I am to the Democrats. Actually, I believe "moderate" Republicans end up doing more harm than Democrats.

I just read in the local paper that Steve Laffey may run for governor here in Rhode Island. He's the conservative that opposed Chaffee only to see the Republican leadership back the RINO, who then lost to a very weak Democrat. So if Laffey does run for governor, I'll volunteer on his campaign.
______________________________
"The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."
-Ayn Rand

evidence will demolish it. In order to fight the poor position in Congress, you need to have the congress critters to oppose it. House is already under autocratic control and nobody expects to reverse it. Senate looks to get more blue, indeed many of the McCainiacs point at this as part of the reason we need to vote for him regardless of how far he is from our positions: McCain will be the last line of defense against the idiocy.

Frankly, at this stage of the game I'm almost to the point of hoping Hillary wins the Dem nomination so the light at the end of the tunnel is only an oncoming train and not something worse. The next four years are going to be incredibly painful, regardless of which loser wins.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Newt Gingrich advocated a cap-and-trade system. I believe Newt basically called for tax credits for "clean energy" initiatives in the private sector, and the expansion of nuclear power.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Even Newt Gingrich has fallen for it.

.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

Unfortunately, nuclear power will be very expensive, so it can not used as the primary solution even in the short term.

New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs
Rebecca Smith, The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates ... Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear plants less attractive. On the other hand, Nuclear plants wouldn't have to pay (hypothetical) greenhouse-gas emissions taxes because they aren't emitters.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

See High Cost of Nukes Not Just a Nuke Problem by Heritage.

While debating the future economics of nuclear power here in the comments is not my intent, the fact remains that a significant portion of the costs associated with nuclear plant construction is largely due to complying with government regulations. Again this is largely a political problem. Newer reactor designs and reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods for older reactors significantly reduces many of the problems associated with nuclear waste. We do not reprocess our nuclear fuel rods in the United States because of a decision made by the Carter administration in the 1970s!
France, yes France, generates 80% of its electricity through nuclear fission, even before Sarkozy's election, at competitive rates; they also reprocess their spent nuclear fuel rods. With increasing world-wide demand for energy, not to mention the considerable political resistance associated with increasing domestic oil, gas, and coal production, large scale adoption of nuclear power might be the only way that the United States can make meaningful progress towards reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Man-made global warming provides the political opening to have a serious debate about energy policy where the "nuclear option" is finally back on the table. Without conceding the argument with respect to whether increased carbon dioxide emissions have contributed to the roughly one degree rise in global temperatures over the course of the 20th Century, we should effectively call the left's bluff and counter with an energy policy based on greater use of nuclear power. If, for political purposes during the 2008 campaign, this needs to be wrapped in “cap and trade” rhetoric to be more palatable to voters, I will accept that. Moreover, unlike a straight “carbon tax” favored by many on the left, a thoughtful cap and trade framework with the appropriate timelines and incentives could provide both the economic and regulatory environment to effect a strategic transition to a primarily nuclear powered electricity grid for the United States over the next two decades.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." -- Winston Churchill

with respect to nuclear power but I don't think support of cap and trade will lead there. When you talk about buying permission to emite carbon in one place the idea is that somewhere else the same amount of carbon will be (Not Emitted) but I don't see any world wide plan to effect a systematic cap and trade. What will happen IMO is that some will pay offsets and somewhere else someone will cheat. Even people today who drive hybrids do not realize the carbon emissions at the manufacturing plant and battery plant. Its a fraud. (And McCain is not in his right mind.)

Of course a nuclear plant could be sold on its low carbon emission but by the same token, the concrete and plumbing need to be paid for (with offsets) when they are manufactured.

We could generate a whole lot of cheap electricity and this would drive an economic change to more electric rail and plug in hybrids but the cost of manufacturing will still release huge amounts of carbon to eventually get to this "green" economy. Of course this will be happening in every country around the globe.

The real game (fear) that I see is the need for a global bureaucracy (government) to oversee all this trading and make sure there are no cheaters. I wonder how much of our freedom will be sacrificed on the alter of AGW before people realize it is a way to tax growth and put the people under submission.

I am not convinced it is a sound position to claim the GW is a fact or a lie. The theory is plausible, though the extrapolations are very, very dodgy, often overstated and contrary indicators. Either way it's being hyped to hell as a way of ramming in government control of practically everything.

AS blogpre said, it's probably not a politically clever position to sit there shouting that GW is a con. But it would be a sound position to say "It may become a problem, but some of the schemes proposed so far will do more harm than good so we want to move forward with better plans".

I note that McCain has not said he will sign up to Kyoto, but we need a new better treaty. Some here seem to insist that he will sign Kyoto, is there some proof of this position?

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

I watched it, and gave money to the Club for Growth instead. I don't agree with them 100%, but they're a heck of a lot closer than any of the Republican leadership right now.

He's making AGW a national security issue? Come on, McCain.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Interesting article. Let me get this straight, Britain's going to have a Siberian climate AND the oceans are going to rise? So it's going to be getting COLDER in Britain, but the Greenland ice sheet and the Antactic are both going to MELT?

And not one mention about the problems that will be caused by guano from the flying pigs...
__________________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

That's the result of a change in the Gulf Stream. Or are you one of those wiseacres who claims there is no global warming because it was 10 below zero in Chicago in January?

I beleive you mean the Jet Stream. I live in Minneapolis, where we live in a deep freeze six months of the year because the jet stream diverts cold polar air south of us. That's an important point; the cold air has to come from SOMEWHERE. If all of Greenland is above freezing, where's all this cold air going to come from that will bathe Britain?

To say that Britain is going to be like Siberia while at the same time the entire Greenland ice shelf is going to melt kinda strains credulity. Siberia in the winter gets close to -60, water melts at +32. You're talking about a temperature difference of almost 100 degrees ocurring over a few hundred miles, with the warmer region above the artic circle. That's a pretty specific shape of the Jet Stream coming from a science that has yet to make a verifiable prediction. If you can buy into that notion, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

"Or are you one of those wiseacres who claims there is no global warming because it was 10 below zero in Chicago in January?"

Actually, I'm one of those people who claims there's no global warming because:

a) CO2 blocks only a small portion of the IR spectrum, and started pretty close to the asymptotal limit before the industrial revolution

b) In order for a small non-linear input factor to have a major effect on output, some sort of coupling or feedback mechanism must be present, and no real evidence exists of such

c) The ice caps on Mars have been melting over the last 20 years, which indicates solar input, which has a much larger effect than CO2 levels, as a common (and simpler) cause.

d) Most of the same people warning us about global warming today were involved in the scientific fraud of nuclear winter two decades ago, and have the same motivations to advance a global warming fraud in this decade.

e) AGW predictions all appear to have been written by Nostradamus; useless for predicting the future, but all-purpose when it comes to predicting the past. I beleive they've now managed to link global waming to both the Lincoln and Kennedy assasinations, as well as explaining why Clint Eastwood was cast in a singing role in Paint Your Wagon.

f) All of the idiots who claim that there IS global warming because it's NOT ten below in Minneapolis in December.

___________________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

e: ROFLMAO

.

I'm shocked that the Pentagon would promote some political agenda, shocked I tell you. Next time why don't you look for some article 20 year old, maybe you can find a pentagon report on global cooling.

I was merely stating that McCain is certainly not alone in making the claim that GW is a national security concern.

When the best you can hope for from the candidate you're planning to vote for is that one of the centerpieces of his campaign will be shot down as unconstitional.

It's going to be a long, LONG 8 years.
___________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Imagine someone said "Relax, he needs a few issues to show a separation on policy from Bush, and promising liberal SCOTUS nominees is just one of those issues".

Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be willing to do so. For me, this issue is more important than judges, by a large margin. The US political two-party system ensures that the liberals will get their judges in - if they couldn't, we'd be on our way to despotism. So that's a feature, not a bug.

But this? This is 'kill our economy for generations, while moving sharply to the left on economic issues'. There's no way that we get this enacted on a Democratic administration - they're not going to do this when they'll suffer the blame for the consequences. But they'll happily send the country to Hell when it gives them political advantage to do so.

This issue very well may move me from simply not voting for McCain, to voting against him. Because the other guys will do less long-term damage.

and as long as its McCain V. Obama, McCain has my vote regardless what he said because the war should be are only concern.

McCain '08

What McCain said should concern you. Because under the cratered economy that his plan will cause, we won't be able to afford the war. And in the inevitable Democratic administration that would follow it shortly, we'll see the most massive expansion of social programs since the New Deal, to handle all the people thrown out of work.

Look. We're going to be at war for probably the next 50 years. The Republicans aren't going to win the next twelve presidential elections. So the simple fact is that sooner or later, the country is going to have to recover from the Democratic damage to the war effort. It's one hundred percent unavoidable.

...because there is no way in Hell I will turn my beloved country over to Barack Obama.

As to your point about "distancing himself from Bush", well McCain could have easily simply paid lip service to the issue and went on some BS riff about "green technologies" (think Newt Gingrich). He didn't have to come out with an insane, ridiculous proposal like this.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

so it should be no surprise that he is campaigning on it.

McCain '08

...that he would tweak his position to make it more palatable to conservatives. He could have made an environmental pitch without making this specific proposal.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Why would he pay "lip service" to an issue he is obviously passionate about? From a political point of view, this may cost him a few votes on the GOP side but it may also win him some Independent voter support. I think this is a net "plus" for McCain in the Fall.

People that consider environmentalism a vote-deciding issue are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats that will be voting Obama.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”