Arizona Sen. McCain said he believes the governments of France, Britain, Germany and others in Europe are prepared to impose meaningful sanctions against Iran and suggested it was time to proceed on that course without China and Russia, which have blocked stronger U.N. sanctions.

He also vowed to go ahead with an anti-missile defense shield based in Europe.

The United States on Tuesday signed a pact to build part of the missile shield in the Czech Republic. The Bush administration also wants to install facilities in Poland, although talks have stalled. (emphasis mine)

Senate Republicans blocked a proposal Tuesday to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies, despite pleas by Democratic leaders to use the measure to address America's anger over $4 a gallon gasoline. 

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies and given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that the bill's supporters argue has added to the crude oil price surge.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and want Congress to do something about oil company profits and "an orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republicans argued the Democratic proposal focusing on new oil industry taxes is not the answer to the country's energy problems.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but if taxes are increased on the oil companies "they will get exactly what they don't want. The bill will raise taxes, increase imports."

The Democrats failed, 51-43, to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster and bring the energy package up for consideration.

 First of all, the stated objectives on both sides of this are flawed.  Using legislation to address "anger", especially when the rage is over what has become a norm whether we like it or not, is misguided at best, if not outright pandering.  Plus, I always find it curious when the party popularly considered more environment-friendly ignores that higher fuel costs are aiding that cause without them having to lift a finger. 

At least the Democratic view can be seen as muddled, as opposed to the Republican tack of being openly delusional: No, the price of gas is not going to go back to $1, or even $2, probably not even $3*.  Since it's unrealistic to actually expect the relief people are clamoring for (especially considering we're going bonkers over prices many countries have been dealing with for years), this rhetoric can only mean one thing: they want to give Big Oil more breaks.  No surprise there, tell 'em "no" and move on.

Now, when it comes to the process behind the goals, it's safe to say I'm waaaaay off the reservation.  However, imagine that the context of this move were reinterpreted... 

Oil companies have enjoyed a huge amount of help from political connections.  Targeted tax breaks, regulatory structures that weaken alt-fuels right out of the gate, all the way to outright subsidizing their operating costs, making the space between cost & profit much larger than it would naturally be (I'd argue a substantial chunk of our foreign policy amounts to this.  If you think gas is high NOW, imagine if the cost of all the global wheel-greasing involved were factored in).  Instead of a pseudo-populist narrative of punishment -- which seems to leave these facts out for some reason -- suppose this policy were sold to the public as if its creators have Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" somewhere on their shelves or hard drives?  Imagine if the tactic were to point out how much government favors were involved in obtaining those profits, negating the myth that oil companies operate in anything close to a free market, and adopt an air of "you've got to be kidding me" with regards to refusing to pay for those favors.

If this sounds familiar, it's because such a view takes a stab at my request that, as long as there is government, funding it be determined based on asking who truly benefits from it.  I wouldn't say this is what I had in mind, but expressing this as such would be an opening, both for my view and for mainstream liberals.  Even with the failure of this particular legislation, the tactic I describe could be adapted: simply respond to the failure with "sorry, no freebies!", and very publically push to wipe out as many of their privileges as is politically possible, smacking down any GOP griping by painting them as the corporate equivalent of Bolsheviks. 

(* - I'd suggest the cause of the current oil market madness would break down 40/40/20: 40% the dollar plunge due to our spiraling debt & the panicky Fed "liquidity" flood; 40% reaction to our beligerent foreign policy by the nations that have enough oil under their turf to hold sway; 20% negative speculation that is fast becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.  Each influences and reinforces the other.  Dealing with these seriously is going to require a long, extremely difficult process with several figures involved essentially committing political suicide to drag us towards a sanity they will never see themselves.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.)

What?  A politician openly suggesting that chunks of the Federal Register will go bye-bye on his watch?  Hold on, I have to go shoo these flying pigs away from my window...

To the partyarchs out there: I know I'm an obvious outlier.  You might think back to some of my remarks on my own site & reason that there's no point in listening to my radical anarchist rants.  However, I know regardless of how bad I think the current setup is, the next president declaring themself dictator-for-life would make my goals that much more difficult.  You have someone who has now stated they want to go the other direction.  If you NEVER take me up on anything else, do so on this:

Hold him to his word. 

If by chance he gets in & fails to keep his promise, and the new lows of the last eight years aren't being actively erased, I hope you will raise absolute hell over it.  Because you already know I will.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

• Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

• Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

• Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

• Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was taken aback by the National Right to Life Committee's recent endorsement of Fred Thompson, the ex-Tennessee senator. (emphasis mine)

Wall Street -- often thought of as a bastion of Republican ideals -- is leaning toward Democrats these days.

As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.

Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.

At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30.

More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash  $184,750, according to the ABC analysis.

Don't be mistaken -- there are still plenty of Republican supporters on Wall Street. But, for the first time in more than a decade, Democratic donors outnumber those supporting Republicans. (emphasis mine)