McCain appears to be doing a bit better after the New Hampshire primary "bump".  Unfortuate if you are a pilot-- McCain has long credentials as an "anti-General Aviation" senator, and has long been a big proponent of user fees going back to the 1990s and a particular enemy of AOPA (Airplane Owners and Pilots Association).

Read this McCain interview from 2001 and this reply from Phil Boyer of AOPA.  I remember some of my feelings at the time of the original McCain/Boyer "debate" in which several things McCain said struck me as unusually arrogant; he left me with a clear impression he believed only his opinion mattered and once his mind was made up that's all that mattered, no further discussion.  This whole issue just seemed to show a very unpleasant side to McCain that left a lasting impression on me.  It is rare to see through the public persona of one of the folks on Capitol Hill to the real person underneath, and during user fee discussions I think you got to see the "real McCain" shine through-- and it wasn't pretty.

I bring this up because that attribute is exactly what I don't want to see in a president.  A president who thinks he is always right, and that nobody else's opinion has any merit, is a dangerous man. 

If you are a pilot then you should consider very carefully before voting for McCain.  Even if you aren't, I would say the personality expressed during all of the debates between Boyer and McCain should at the very least give you some pause about what sort of personality you would want in the Oval Office.

I can't say there is no possible scenario that would compel me to vote for McCain during the general election, but I can say the alternative I would be voting against would have to be particularly frightening (enough to vote against McCain's opponent rather than not vote at all). He convinced me many years ago during this debate what sort of man he is, and it's not one I want in the highest position of power.

The latest Frank Murkowski-induced "screw job" on the residents of Alaska came home to roost today... read this ADN report on the $800 million shortfall in "expected" revenue this first year of the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT).  And that's just the first year... so it would be reasonable to conclude that the assumptions built into the tax are invalid for every year afterwards too.

Anyone with even the slightest bit of accounting knowledge could see this outcome in the making; large corporations of the sizes involved here have numerous perfectly legal tactics to reduce apparent and reported profits, thus allowing them a great deal of control over the actual amount of taxes paid.  If you want to know how much... note in the ADN article that the state cannot even find accountants capable of auditing these large corporations (hint: even the IRS takes around 7 years to get an agreement on the actual federal corporate returns these companies file using all the resources of the IRS, so you can imagine what it's going to take for a state to do the same... that's one big reason I opposed a tax on profits, why even sign up for that kind of auditing requirement?).

This article on the AK state web site points out the influence Murkowski personally had in ensuring the tax rates would be set lower than the residents who votes hadn't been bought and paid for by the same oil companies affected by the tax would have preferred, even if we had to be stuck with a tax on (legally well-adjusted) profits alone.

However, after rescuing us from Murkowski's attempts to nail the taxpayer on the gas pipeline, Palin is now set to force a re-examination of all of the assumptions built into the PPT.  Note she rightly points out the that bribed votes were sufficient to affect the outcome of the legislation and that alone is grounds for reopening the debate.  If she really wants to stir things up, she need only announce some audits or investigations of a few other "yes" voters to bring a great deal of sober thought to the special session (though perhaps the 3 she has are already enough to make the point).  I have to assume if there were 3 bribed, there were probably more than 3 (though I do assume that at least some yes votes were by people who honestly felt based on the numbers they were given it would be good for the state... numbers whose assumptions have been proven false in the very first year of the tax... so I assume that those honest people are probably interested in reopening the discussion now that they know more of the reality).

As the ADN article points out, it probably really is too early to tell what the true long term effect is.  However, given that the bribed legislators were sufficient to swing the vote, that single fact alone makes it important to re-examine the assumptions built into the tax and get a (hopefully) clean vote on the actual merits of the PPT... if it's really the right thing for the state then it can stand up to that debate.

According to this Michelle Malkin post,  looks like Stevens and Murkowski did support the filibuster to allow for more amendments.   So I take that to mean they didn't plan to vote for the bill as-is, but only an amended bill.  Small comfort, but let's give them some small bit of credit here for at least that much.

However I did get a 3 page form letter from Murkowski describing why she thinks the bill is not an amnesty bill, and why the so-called "triggers" mean enforcement happens before... well, amnesty.  Since the illegals get immediate provisional status even if no future enforcement ever occurs (and probably won't given all the laws congress has failed to fund so far) it's hard to see how that's not immediate and permanent amnesty.  In any case Lisa's letter makes clear she thinks this bill is good thing and I suspect that without significant pressure from Alaskan citizens in the end she will vote for the bill.  There's a reason why Malkin's post lists her as one of 15 expected to get pressure from the White House on this bill.  The entire form letter was a clear attempt to convice the reader the bill is a good one.

I take it she is feeling a bit defensive on this issue... 3 pages is the longest form letter I have ever received from her!

No form letter from Stevens yet, so I don't know his current position, however it must be pretty soggy or he wouldn't also be one of the 15 targeted senators for "conversion" by the White House.

Keep up the pressure on these two!  It's clearly had some effect already.

Note both Stevens and Murkowsi voted against the amendment that requires enforcement of current immigration laws.  See Michelle Malkin's list of the specific laws they apparently didn't think were worth enforcing.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007680.htm
 

Check out Michelle Malkin's post.   Note in the "Frosty Woolridge" section that both Stevens and Murkowski are key players here, attempting to have it both ways in the previous vote.  Time for Alaska's conservatives to let these folks know our opinion of the Senate "amnesty bill"...  they need to take a real stand, not play politics in such a crucial debate that will define the next generation of immigration legislation.

Web contact forms here.

 

Sigh... Count Lisa Murkowski as one of the spineless. Though she clearly ran on a conservative platform, I'm having trouble coming up with any actual conservatism demonstrated in her congressional votes.  This article certainly paints a picture of her actively working on one of the "shoot ourselves in the foot" motions. Disheartening, but certainly not the first time Lisa has let me down (nor will it be the last, I am sure).

Any 2008 presidential candidate should take notice of the public reaction to the electronic sign debacle in Boston this week.

The two marketing idiots were obviously pretty clueless as to why anyone would be upset with their stunt.  Their actions only make sense if you have a pre-9/11 mindset, in which nobody would have thought twice about an odd electronic sign under a highway overpass.

In fact, liberals and media pundits would have us believe that the country has "moved on" to live the normal life they once had (how else does one explain the professor this week suggesting the public has completely overblown the entire 9/11 incident?),

However, I believe only a small proportion of America shares this attitude, and this week we even have the evidence to show it— the public reaction in Boston.  In one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal states who elect some of the most liberal politicians in America, when the public saw these little signs along the highway their first reaction,  the place they went before anything else, was FEAR.  Fear of IEDs, fear of terrorist acts, fear that something terrible was about to happen that might harm them or their children... their true "heart of hearts" revealed for the whole country to see.

Even liberals, it would seem, did not really move on these many terror-free years after 9/11.  As a nation we still harbor deep-rooted fears of becoming what we see happen in Israel on the news- bombs in our shops and streets.  And apparently this fear crosses party lines judging from the reaction in Boston. 

The clear implication is that the left's words are political posturing, a thin veneer over the fears they dare not express... basically hoping beyond reason that if they ignore the issue long enough it will go away. (Perhaps this is what Obama is talking about when he gives his "hope" stump speech ;)

As I project forward to the moment when these same people cast their secret ballot, I suspect that the candidates who get the votes will probably NOT be the ones touting the biggest domestic agenda, but rather the one they feel is most likely to prevent a real horror in Boston and every other city in America from happening.  And what candidate running today do most Americans most associate with standing firm in our cities after 9/11?  Rudy Giuliani.  The TV images are burned in every mind from those days. 

I think that as we get closer to the real dates of the primaries, Giuliani will get a genuine boost from this unsettled feeling among the average citizen.  He’s not my favored candidate at the moment (actually I like Newt ;)  but I have a feeling he will be difficult to beat, based on the peek into the true minds of the average citizen we all saw this week. 

Perhaps if by some miracle nothing else happens between now and the 2008 election these people who were at least temporarily awoken from their wishful thinking can suppress the fear once more; but as we can see it only takes a minor incident to bring it back out.  If I were a gambler, I would bet we see more domestic events between now and then, trivial or not... and that America votes for someone perceived (rightly or not) as a hawk against terrorism.  Domestic issues simply don't stack up well against fear for your children's lives.