Join Us At Our New Site

Any blog dedicated to the election of the losing candidate won't stay very active after the election is over. Such is the case here. It's been a terrific experience for all of us at MacPac08, but there's not much left here to do. Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting over the past few months; we hope you enjoyed the reading as much as we did the writing.

We have started a new site where like-minded people can discuss issues and find common ground on the values we all hold so dear. Please join us at Worth The Fighting For(http://worththefightingfor.ning.com).

John McCain on Leno -Veterans Day

Veteran's Day Salute

While this blog still has a bit of an audience, I want to share this with all of you:

On November 11, 1999 Terry Kelly was in a Shoppers Drug Mart store in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. At 10:55 AM an announcement came over the store's PA asking customers who would still be on the premises at 11:00 AM to give two minutes of silence in respect to the veterans who have sacrificed so much for us.

Terry was impressed with the store's leadership role in adopting the Legion's "two minutes of silence" initiative. He felt that the store's contribution of educating the public to the importance of remembering was commendable.

When eleven o'clock arrived on that day, an announcement was again made asking for the "two minutes of silence" to commence. All customers, with the exception of a man who was accompanied by his young child, showed their respect.

Terry's anger towards the father for trying to engage the store's clerk in conversation and for setting a bad example for his child was later channeled into a beautiful piece of work called, "A Pittance of Time". Terry later recorded "A Pittance of Time" and included it on his full-length music CD, "The Power of the Dream".

You can find out more about Terry Kelly and the song at his website: http://www.terry-kelly.com/pittance/pittance_en.htm

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and reflect on those who've given so much for all of us:



Thanks Guys.

Well, Hell!

The better man lost tonight.

This year, the American people had a clear choice between a genuine hero, a man who has literally given his entire life for his country, but they went for a charming, inexperienced upstart with a resume thinner than tissue and a line of bullshit three meters thick.

We, like Senator McCain, congratulate Senator Obama on his victory and wish him well. This is a historic moment for our country, but one that is difficult for so many of us who admire John McCain for the many qualities he has always exhibited, but his opponent has so far only talked about.

To Senator John McCain, we say, "THANK YOU." Thank you for your service, for your integrity, for your commitment to making our country a better, safer, more prosperous place for all of us to realize our own versions of the American Dream. You noted during one of the debates that "I want to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest." and that you'd "rather lose a campaign than lose a war." In both respects, Sir, you have accomplished your goals, and hopefully the personal feelings you feel at the loss of this campaign is cushioned by these facts.

So now John McCain heads back to the Senate and assumes the role of what the British like to call the "loyal opposition." But first, Senator, take some time. Go home to Arizona, barbeque some ribs, reconnect with your family, and get some rest. You've earned it. You have two years left in your current term and we sincerely hope you stick around for at least one more term in the Senate. Support Mr. Obama when he's right, oppose him when he's wrong, and don't ever let go of the principles that made you the man whom we so deeply admire.

Like you said:

"...there are still things worth fighting for here, and I think I'm as ready for them as I've ever been. I won't win them all. I won't win most of them. But I'll win a few. And as long as my conceit doesn't convince me of my indispensability to America instead of my country's indispensability
to me, we should both do all right."

Go get 'em, Senator. We're right behind you.

An Endorsement That Sums It All Up

From the Albuquerque Journal, why John McCain is the best choice for President:

"McCain For President"
Editorial
Albuquerque Journal

Weekly town hall meeting-style debates for the last two months, as proposed by Sen. John McCain, would have done much to inform the public about the issues -- and about McCain's long, clear record as a moderate who works across party lines. Sen. Barack Obama, whose record is very thin, shrewdly rejected the joint tour that could have given swing voters a more substantial comparison of the candidates. The Republican hasn't fared well in the traditional campaign that ensued, though voters caught a glimpse of the real McCain when he firmly told a supporter there was no reason to "fear" his rival, publicly squelching the notion that Obama is anything other than a patriotic American who has run a masterful campaign.

We encourage those who are still uncommitted and those who vote on the basis of a candidate's qualifications instead of party label to give McCain's experience a closer look and to consider the consequences of concentrating too much political and economic power in the hands of one party.

McCain veto in the White House would provide a check on a Congress likely to take a leftward swing in this election. Where principles are on the line, McCain has a history of standing firm.

He didn't bend to the will of torturers in a North Vietnamese prison, even when doing so could have bought his freedom. He didn't bend to the will of presidents, Republican and Democrat, and drop his opposition to deploying Marines in Beirut in the '80s or sending troops to Somalia in the '90s -- judgments in which he was proved right.

Along with many Democratic senators, McCain in retrospect was wrong on the invasion of Iraq, but he was right from the beginning to stand against the Bush administration's failure to put enough boots and equipment on the ground to do the job right. He was clearly correct to push the administration for the troop surge that has given Iraq a shot at avoiding chaos. A President McCain would not lightly commit U.S. force, but neither would he shy away from addressing threats -- diplomatically or militarily -- before they achieved unmanageable proportions.

He can be depended on to stand firm and moderate a Congress that feels it has been handed carte blanche by this election, but he also would find ways to work with Congress.

He has collaborated not only with centrist Democrats, but has palled around with liberals like Sens. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold on tough issues like immigration and campaign reform. Few other Republicans or Democrats would similarly risk the ire of their own party.

McCain early on advocated an "all-of-the-above" energy policy -- including nuclear, offshore drilling and cutting CO2 emissions -- instead of swinging around in response to public opinion just before an election.

His tax and economic plans, emphasizing job creation, are better remedies for the nation's ills.

A border state senator, he put his political capital on the line to address immigration issues many in Congress preferred to let fester. He is a champion for Native Americans.

He is a known quantity, a member of Congress since 1982 whose positions and record are clear. At a time of partisan, economic and geopolitical turmoil, that inspires confidence and justifies a vote for John McCain.

Over? Did You Say Over? Nothing Is Over Until We Decide It Is!

Forgive my little nod to John Belushi and "Animal House", but I ran across a couple articles you might find interesting, while Barack Obama and the mainstream media start their little victory dance.

Over at NoQuarter, the following from a former Clinton worker, now working for Obama:

"I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama.

Another reason for my doing this is that I have lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country.

Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope.

I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans"

And this, at Hillbuzz:

The ONLY way McCain loses this race is if the media, operating as a full-fledged wing of the Obama campaign, breeds enough Eeyores amongst you to keep enough people home for Obama to squeak out wins. Hillary Clinton should have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, by larger margins that she did. Ohio should have been a 13-point win, Pennsylvania should have been a 12-point win, and Indiana should have been a 9-point win. Eeyores staying home, saying, “Oh bother, TV say me stay home, me sad, need dydee changed!” is what cost Hillary those extra points.

Don’t be Eeyores on Tuesday! Get those Eeyore butts off your couches, away from toxic TV, and GO VOTE. Get everyone you know to vote — tell them if they don’t, then Obama will turn America socialist, and we’re going to start with their house and bank account when we begin redistributing wealth. That should motivate them.

Those of us who have been regulars on the McCain blog have seen this behavior for months, almost from the moment that Hillary Clinton was arithmetically eliminated from receiving the Democratic nomination. Constant harping about Obama's inevitability, frequent repetition of poll numbers supporting Obama, the weekly newsmagazines with messiah-like pictures on the cover and the never-ending Obama love-fest on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and the New York Times.

Bottom line is this: DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLLS. DO NOT BELIEVE THE MEDIA. The ONLY POLL THAT COUNTS IS THE ONE ON NOVEMBER 4TH. NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!

If you voted early, good for you! If you haven't voted, get there early on the 4th. Take a friend, preferably a REPUBLICAN friend with you, so they can vote too! If we lose, we lose. But remember, decisions are made by the people who show up. So -- SHOW UP! Go VOTE!

Nicholas Sarkozy - Obama's Iran Policy "Utterly Immature"

From Haaretz.com:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West.

According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

The article goes on further to note:

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

Could Obama's naivete be the opening Iran needs to present the "test" of Obama that Joe Biden has referred to? What could the test be? A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? A dirty bomb set off in New York, or Washington? If any of those things were to happen, would anyone
care, really, how well Obama performed under pressure, especially when we have an opportunity to elect a candidate who rogue nations wouldn't DARE to "test?"

Realistically, John Kennedy performed admirably during the Cuban Missile crisis, but it would never have happened if he hadn't been perceived as weak. Although is was a heroic moment for him, wouldn't the world have been better if we'd never had the crisis at all?

Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket”

Via Hotair; In another clip from the same January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his cap-and-trade policy:



The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Energy prices skyrocketing will leave the economy in tatters, as we saw earlier this year. While no one doubts the need to start transitioning to better sources of energy, the manner in which that gets done means the difference of whether it gets done at all. A stagnant or receding economy does not produce scientific breakthroughs, especially when government both increases taxes and imposes steep cost burdens on energy. That cuts into both manufacturing and R&D, because as profits fall, fewer dollars go into research — which means that all of these wonderful developments would get delayed, or go unrealized altogether.

We need to plan for the transition better than what Obama proposes. We need to use our own reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, and shale to cushion the economy while we develop the alternatives and build the infrastructure to deliver it. That’s what John McCain proposed in his Lexington Project.

Price shocks on energy is the last thing this economy needs. It would be worse than the taxes Obama promises to impose on investment, and would have the same depressive effect. It’s an utter disaster.

EDITORS UPDATE: The video referred to in this article has been taken down. Please find an audio recording of Obama's statements on coal-fired plants below, or click here:

Video: Middle class topped out at 70K in 2003, according to Obama

According to Ed Morrissey; Normally, this would not amount to much, but with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their various surrogates having trouble finding the floor for tax cuts, perhaps more trenchant than it otherwise would be. In a 2003 interview while starting his Senate campaign, Obama said that tax cuts should have been targeted no higher than the $70K level:



Well, you know the problem was is that they weren’t targeted at the short term stimulus of the economy. What we should have done is if we were going to initiate tax cuts, and I’m a strong supporter of tax cuts for working families like the Earned Income Tax Credit, to initiate things like cuts in the Social Security tax, and other taxes that are really burdensome on families that are making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year. Those tax cuts I think would have stimulated the economy.
But the money that we’ve given up directly affects Illinois in its potential, in terms of job growth because it means that transportation dollars are not in the state of Illinois, heath care dollars are not in the state of Illinois. There are enormous needs around the state that we could be using that money for.

The EITC reference is interesting. That’s a refundable, rather than a tax cut. It’s basically a redistributive tool, although one with broad bipartisan support. No one ever talks about ending the EITC, or at least not seriously enough to matter. It does reflect Obama’s inclination to rely on refundables rather than actual rate cuts, which reflects on his current tax plans.

Obama’s top end for cuts certainly changed dramatically. If he thought that tax cuts should be limited to $70K in 2003, he hasn’t explained what changed in the following five years to move that to $250K $200K $150K $120K. Obama could have simply changed his mind, but the ambiguity surrounding Democratic talking points in the past few weeks suggests that his commitment to the higher income levels is tenuous at best.

Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

The folks at Naked Emperor News have unearthed another interesting nugget from a Barack Obama interview from months ago. In January 2008, Obama spoke about his approach to global warming and cap-and-trade systems, and he had a warning for anyone foolish enough to invest in coal:



So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

This is the way Obama intends to do it. Coal provides 49% of domestic electrical power, and any rise in the cost of producing that energy will raise its cost to consumers and reduce the amount produced.

This comes as no great shock, pun intended. Obama already called for a 15% reduction in demand for electricity — at the same time he and his allies want transportation to switch from gasoline to electricity. Obama never explained this particular contradiction. How does one switch tens of millions of vehicles from gasoline to electricity while not Increasing demand, let alone by cutting it 15%? And when trying to break free from a recession, the nation will need greater production in energy, not a reduction.

The coal-based economics of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and other states will be the first to feel this new policy. Let’s hope the voters there pay attention.