10. Timing of the news conference conflicts with family DVD night.

9. Watching paint dry is more interesting. For those who want to be more “environmentally friendly” grass growing is an EPA acceptable alternative (to this point).

8. WWE offers better acting. The entire event including questions and answers are scripted out and posted on JournaLIST. Similar to WWE, the audience gets the finished product of hours of rehearsal. At least there is add libbing with WWE. Right?

7. We already heard from President Obama about his NCAA picks and bowling skills this past week. What else is there to know?

6. Isnt my dentist appointment tonight?

5. Im not in to teaching my kids how to lie and stretch the truth for personal gain of power at the expense of other’s freedoms. Although the press conference could offer a valuable less on learning how to play pretend.

4. I get more truthful information and harder hitting questions from the forth coming Saturday Night Light skit. Count me in for that.

3. Because farming entry level Naxxramas for the 20th time is far more entertaining, especially if you run in and aggro the boss while yelling.. well, you know…

2. My grass needs mowed.

1. Our dear leader, Obama, knows better any ways. Best I leave the tough decisions to government and those in Congress who know better. I know the Constitution doesn’t give them the authority, but how dare such small details get in the way of progressive ideas!

Update: Drudge Report states the following:

SOURCE: Reporters were told in advance if president was going to call on them. Senior Administration Officials notified reporters from Stars & Stripes, Univision and other news outlets that they should have question ready. Several reporters moved up in assigned seats as result…

Can I call it or what?

As I plow through various tid bits of work a few stories caught my attention which I feel need a little pointing out.

Carville wanted Bush to fail: In an interesting story just now emerging - Democrat strategist James Carville stated on the morning of September 11 (before the terrorist attacks) that he hoped President Bush would fail in office. This changed after the attacks occurred.

Still, the story never saw day of light. Anyone else find it odd that such a relevant little bit of information would stay dormant in the face of the media framing of Rush Limbaugh? Hrm.

European countries reject adding more stimulus: Anyone else find it backward that European countries are using their heads more than we are? Apparently many are actively resisting Obama’s calls to go deeper in debt to try and “stimulate” their economies.

Think maybe after the past few decades of using the same failed policies we are attempting now they understand? nah.

President Obama uses signing statements: One of the harshes criticism against President Bush was the use of signing statements as an ad-hoc line item veto tool. Obama apparently decided to adopt this policy.

In this case, he decided to remove provisions out of the budget which would restrict the use of U.S. military under United Nations command and another preventing the punishment of whistle blowers.

Term Limits group rips Missouri Plan to change term limits: While I understand the logic, I gotta agree with the organization. The plan would by defacto double the time allowed to serve in the Missouri Legislature.

At this point I dont know if this is a good or bad thing, but my gut says bad move.

Stop laughing, I mean it.

We are wanting real solutions and not just rhetoric, right? Good. Now, lets calm down and take a good hard look at what is being done in Washington to help America regarding high fuel prices.

Haystack over at Redstate.com posts a graphic as provided by Roy Blunt’s office which puts the entire situation in black and white. Whether its launching investigations or proposing 20 billion in tax increases on oil producers - none of the Democrat solutions help joe six pack or andy b. small business owner. We should not be suprised given Barack Obama’s latest answer in that he is not opposed to higher gas prices.

What people should be looking at, however, are market based solutions which attempt to create downward pressure on speculators. Only then can we look to providing energy independence and re-ignite one of the core elements of our economic engine.

To be clear, yes, I support new regulations on commodity fund trading which would require those speculating to pay the same level as other areas of the market.

However this does not deminish the savings which Republican proposals would make upon energy prices.

Lets compare the two, shall we?

Democrat proposals:

• Sue Opec. (Hmm.. cant see any savings there - nothing like making the main supplier of your energy supplies mad as a hornet)
• Launch investigation into price gouging. (Cant remember that doing any good in the past)
• Launch investigation into speculators. (Again, show me the results of these investigations as being positive substance)
• 20 billion in new taxes on oil producers (Hm. Call me stupid, but I could see those new taxes getting passed on to customers).
• Halt shipments to Strategic Reserves (Five cents estimated).

So whats the total? five cents. Thats it. That is all the downward pressure Democrat propsals make.

Whats worse, I believe, is that the blocking of off shore drilling by Demcrats encourages speculators to believe in “peak oil” or other theories which drive prices higher. Much higher.  So instead of causing downward pressure on the market, I would argue that Democrats are forcing the market upward by disallowing supplies to increase.

Republican proposals:

• Bring onshore online (This includes ANWR and all that oil shale out in colorado - which is estimated to be at or about the same reserves as Saudi Arabia)
• Bring deepwater drilling on line (This is off the contential shelf - not within shouting distances of our costal cities and water ways).
• Bring new refineries on line (None in thirty years because of extensive regulations and red tape. This reduces the production bottle neck)
• Cut earmarks to fund gas tax holiday (Roy Blunt proposed this a few weeks ago - it would equate to 18 cents. Note that Senator Obama does not want this because he claims it would increase use of oil. In short, lowering prices would cause higher prices because of a lower supply. Hm. Think drilling would add to that supply? Sorta backwards thinking if you ask me)
• Halt shipments to strategic reserves (Like Democrat proposal - five cents).

In all it is estimated that Republican proposals would drop gas prices by two dollars a gallon.

Yes, when I say saving two dollars a gallon I am using Blunt’s numbers. More importantly, though, is the use of market principles to create downward pressure on speculators - forcing them to sell because of the excess inventory on the market. This should burst the bubble.

More importantly, however, I would note of the significant jump of oil resources from within our own borders. This would significantly boost our nation’s independence on foriegn oil.

What I personally fail to understand about the Democrat position is why they (Democrats) would seek to continue a way of life which impedes our nation’s best interest both from the prespective of national and economic security. It makes no since to “cuddle a Caraboo” as one reporter put it, while dictators prey upon our need for energy.

Then again, a lot of things dont make sense to me when it comes to the issue. Only time will tell if common sense prevails. It isn’t looking great at this point.

One bright spot is Senator McCain’s call to end the ban on off shore drilling and the current press by Republicans in Congress.

Need that warm, optimistic feeling of patriotism and yes we can from the great Renauldus Magnus? Well, here is a clip (hat tip Red State) from the past.

Current Republicans take note how much Reagan believe in the American spirit of independence and belief that government is not the solution - but the problem. Problems are solved when Americans are released of the shackles of government.

Compare that to recent times or candidates today and think about which direction we are heading and why people are not inspired.

Talk about your nanny state - this is outrageous. Apparently there is a movement in Massachussettes state house to ban corporal punishment.

Nice to see government believing they know how to raise our children more than parents. Typical liberal baloney which might only expand if Democrats get control of the Presidency in addition to the legislative branch.

Let me be clear and note that I am not saying parents should be able to abuse their kids. That is inexcusable.

At the same time, however, there is no reason why government should be able to interfere with how parents determine how to raise and punish their kids. Whats next? Guaranteeing our kids afternoon snacks or cuddle time in lieu of punishment at all.

How the Hillary Clinton campaign is out right intimidating the press and how it seems to be responding in kind?

Lots of assertions can be made about the Bush administration. Some true, some not true. In all cases, though, the media slammed back hard.

Tell me again how someone running for President of the United States should be allowed to call them selves “qualified” when they cannot take a straight up yes or no question and resort to planting questions. Last I heard, someone in FEMA lost their job for what the Clinton Campaign is using as a common strategy.

Double standard? My guess is to most people in the press corps, no. After all, Democrats are supposed to get a free pass, right?

In an interesting move Senator Kit Bond joined Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson in endorsing Rudy Giuliani for President. The two will co-chair his campaign here in the state.

Bond highlighted Rudy’s strengths in the endorsement speach which can be read here.

I am not sure what to make of it, other than being able to tell the various splits in the Republican party when it comes to governing philosophies.

I do believe Bond is pro-life, but like many other individuals he is looking at his leadership qualities and his policies decisions when it comes to the war on terrorism.

We will see.

Like I needed a diploma to figure this one out. Golly gee whiz, look at what researchers found at Harvard University of all places.

The University did a study recently regarding the candidates who are currently running for President. It found over whelming bias in print, network news, cable news. The study also covered PBS and NPR (radio) which tended to be more neutral.

A few of the study highlights include:

• CNN rated as the most negative toward Republicans while MSNBC rated the most postive (huh?).
• MSNBC was the most favorable to Democrats (no shock there at 47%).
• Fox News was the most negative toward Democrats (37%).
• Newspapers tended to focus less on the issues and more on political matters.
• Newspapers gave Republicans a 39% negative rating, while giving Democrats a nearly 60% positive rating.
• Republicans are placed in a positive light in the 25%-30% range among all media while maintaining a 20-40% rating (PBS gave Republicans 0% of news in positive light)
• Democrats were placed in a positive light between 40-60% of the time while negative ratings bounced between 5-25%.

As with all studies, there are a number of other things I missed. Be sure to read the rest of the story as published on Investor’s Business Daily here.

But this advertisement is a darned good one about Hillary Clinton and how she tries to double talk the issues.

Most of the time  our press lets her get away with it - and will likely do so again in the general election. For the moment, though, we get a rare glimps of who she really is.

And for those of you who are Democrats and are jumping up and down about Mitt Romney, I say to you that you are right to a degree. Its just that he hasnt changed his mind on an issue in the past few months.

Hillary, though, is so skilled she can do it in a few minutes without many people catching on.. or do they?

Morning all.

Its going to be a busy Friday here, so like yesterday, I probably wont post a lot due to the work flow.

In any case, I wanted to point people out to an excellent piece by Senator DeMint regarding conservative activism and the web. It is a must read by all.