Monday, December 31, 2007

I'm voting for Ron Paul - 2008 Primary

I'm going to catch some heat for this by some, but that's too bad. I look at the direction of the party today under Bush compared to the philosophy of 1994. I am a 1994 Republican, otherwise known as a less government conservative. I do not support the mass increases in government spending, governmental regulations, and decrease in our freedoms. That is why I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary. This may surprise some, but really shouldn't. Those that really know my politics well know that I have a strong libertarian streak.

First of all, I am not a "9/11 truther". I am not a stormfronter nutjob. I am not supporting surrender. I am not a democrat causing mischief. Those are the labels that opposition on both the right and the left used to paint Ron Paul supporters. I am simply a 1994 style less government conservative. Reduced spending. Reduced regulation. No Patriot Act style regulations, whether it be in the name of the "War on drugs" or "war on terror" or under presidents named Bush or Clinton.

I look at the issues that matter most to me.

1. Freedoms. Few are consistent. Ron Paul is. When Bill Clinton pushed for his intrusive "anti-terror" acts, gun grabs, and sneak and peak measures, Ron Paul stood up and said it was wrong. When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act with many of Clinton's provisions, Ron Paul stood up and said it was wrong. Ron Paul has a consistent 18 year voting record and leadership record of standing up for freedoms, no matter who is president. From free speech, to the right to keep and bear arms, to the 4th amendment on search and seizure.

2. Spending. Ron Paul stayed consistent here and voted against bad spending bills. This is one of the things that is killing our party. We suck less than the democrats here, but suck less still sucks.

3. NAFTA and GATT. Can I say that I told you so one this one. GATT was the worst of the bunch when unelected bureaucrats at the WTO have veto power over our trade. That's unacceptable. I'm not opposed to free trade, but I am opposed to managed trade designed as free trade that hurts our manufacturing and blue collar base.

4. Judges. I'm not worried about Ron Paul here.

5. Consistency. I do not have to worry about Ron Paul putting his finger in the wind and changing his stance for the media or the political winds.

6. Life issues. Ron Paul is pro-life.

7. Character. Something lacking in many politicians today.

For 12 months, my ideological and my pragmatic sides have battled over who I am going to support. More often than not recently, my pragmatic side has won. Not this time. In the end, I thought this to myself - How often does a pro-freedom candidate gain this much traction with fundraising? I have never seen it.

I'm not going to attack other candidates here. With SCOTUS as my number one issue, I will vote for any republican over any democrat running in the general election unless there is another retirement and Bush gets a solid conservative through the democrat senate and the firewall of extremist Chuck Schumer. We are IMO one, maybe two judge away from stopping the neo-lochnerization of the courts. We may or may not get that from the republicans, but the last MODERATE judge (let alone conservative) given to us by the democrats was Byron White from JFK.

However, this is the primary, and no candidate so far as won my vote based on perceived "electableness." My definition of electable is different than the pundits and media which anointed Bob Dole and John Kerry as electable when neither were. Unless it is clear as day to my gut on electablity, I'm going ideological over pragmatism.

This is my Barry Goldwater 1964 moment. "Extremism is defense of liberty is no vice" I am voting for Ron Paul for President on January 15.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Bipartisan fiscal mismanagement

Bipartisanship is not always a good thing. It's oftentimes a very bad thing, like this turkey right here.

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, still voicing concern about special project spending by Congress, signed a $555 billion bill Wednesday that funds the Iraq war well into 2008 and keeps government agencies running through next September.

Bush's signed the massive spending bill as he flew on Air Force One to his Texas ranch here to see in the new year. His signature on the legislation caps a long-running fight with the Democratic-run Congress.

"I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half," the president said in a statement. "Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful government spending."

"There is still more to be done to rein in government spending," Bush said. "In February I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."


That's not good enough Bush. You talked the game, but YOU signed it. You voiced disapproval, but when push came to shove, YOU signed it since you got what you wanted. You could have vetoed it.

To the democrats - YOU control congress. YOU promised fiscal restraint. This is YOUR bill. YOU spent this.

This is over a half a TRILLION dollars in spending, including 10 billion in earmarks. This is a bipartisan turkey of a budget and a Christmas gift from Washington tantamont to a lump of coal.

This stuff makes Matt Millen look almost competent.

Tom Tancredo backs out, backs Romney

Interesting. Some thought he'd back Hunter, or even Ron Paul. This could be a big win for Romney here with the immigration issue, but did Tancredo run his mouth too much on it? We'll see.

From Des Moines Register

late last week, then backed former Massahusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, one of the Iowa frontrunners.

Dianne Bystrom, an Iowa State University political science professor, said Tancredo's exit and endorsement of Romney could shake up the volatile Republican field.

"Tancredo throwing his support behind Romney comes at a key time when Romney is trying to fight off the surge of Mike Huckabee," Bystrom told The Des Moines Register. "For Romney, it probably couldn't have come at a better time."

Tancredo claimed victory on immigration, the cause that drew him into the race in the first place, arguing that his stance in favor of strict enforcement forced the entire field to move toward his position.

In fact, bowing out was the only way to ensure that the momentum behind the anti-illegal immigration movement wouldn't flame out, he said.
(snip)


This could be interesting to see. The primary is coming up fast, so we'll see what happens. I do wonder if Tancredo's name will still be on the ballot. I think he will be in Michigan.

NICS changes pass Congress

This is a we report, you decide thing. The NRA supports this. GOA opposes this. Josh Sugarmann of VPC also opposes this.

From the NRA's email
Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:



Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for NICS checks.


Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed “strong concerns” over this aspect of the bill—surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.


Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.


Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.


Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.


Prevents use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.


Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.


Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.


The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:





Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.


Requires agencies to create “relief from disabilities” programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.


Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year—for any reason, including lack of funds—the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.


Allows awards of attorney’s fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency’s denial of relief in court.


Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health “adjudication” or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.


Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state “relief from disabilities” programs.


Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
On Wednesday evening, by unanimous consent, the U.S. House accepted the Senate amendment to H.R. 2640. The legislation is headed to the President's desk for his signature into law



From gun grabber Josh Sugarmann of VPC:

Much has been made of the bill's bi-partisan, triangulating support: Democrats! Republicans! The National Rifle Association! The Brady Campaign! Beyond this cheery bon temps, little public attention has been paid to what the bill actually does beyond its title. And that's because if you start looking at the details of the bill--especially after NRA-backed changes made by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn--it becomes clear that the measure is nothing less than a pro-gun Trojan Horse. That's why my organization, the Violence Policy Center, and other national gun control groups, have voiced their strong concerns about the version of the bill that was passed by Congress. Concerns that have been validated by none other than the NRA which, after the bill's passage issued a press release which crowed:


And GOA is also unhappy:

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents -- is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court). Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist himself.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year. Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise" deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of that shooting.

Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away. GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.

So our appeal to you is this -- please help us to grow this coming year. Please help us to get more members and activists. If you add $10 to your membership renewal this year, we can reach new gun owners in the mail and tell them about GOA.

Please urge your friends to join GOA... and, at the very least, make sure they sign up for our free e-mail alerts so that we can mobilize more gun owners than ever before!

Sunday, December 23, 2007

The Return of the robocalls

It's close to election time and the robocalls and political phone calls are back.

The worst offenders once again are American Family Voices. I've gotten four calls by those jerks, all spewing BS against Mike Rogers. It's run by Bill Clinton democrats like David Wilhelm (Ex-DNC chair) and Mike Lux (Clinton aide, political director of People for the unAmerican Way). Mike Lux runs the show at AFV. If they have a toll free number, someone should give them a taste of their own medicine and make them lose a lot of their union and Soros money. I did find a business number from back in 03. 202.628.7772 ext. 126 (Business number). Maybe some of you readers can call him up and ask Mike Lux to stop flooding you with robocalls.

With the January primary coming up, some of the campaigns are calling people. I got two surveybots on my answering machine. I haven't made up my decision yet, but if you want to lose my vote real quickly, call me with push polls, robocalls, and attack ads. I really think political phone calls cost more votes than they gain. I can not tell you how many people were pissed off at the calls bombarding their homes during last election season. Think about this. We had all the interest groups robocalling them, at least seven from Mike Lux and American Family voices alone. We had the call centers for the campaigns and political parties themselves. With races for governor, senate, congress, state reps, and everyone else, that all adds up. People at home eating dinner do not like being disturbed and invaded by solicitations over the phone. That goes double for those in a profession viewed on the same level as a used car salesman. I got more complaints about this than anything else over last election season, and I think these calls cost us about 2% in the polls.

Both parties are guilty of this. Mike Lux may be the worst, but he's not the only one.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Updates

Update:

Some good news. The State Senate passed the house bill legalizing MMA in Michigan. It's now in Granholm's hands. The vote was 22-12 from what I can remember and did not go on partisan lines. It took members in both parties to pass this one and the alliances were not what I'm used to seeing.

Some bad news. Phone taxes were raised. This comes right after Granholm says she'll never raise taxes again.

Big snowstorm here. Let's be careful out there.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

(lack of) Updates

Apologize for the lack of updates, but it's the middle of law exam period. I just finished the first one yesterday and it was a grizzly bear to deal with to say the least. There won't be much here for at least a week and a half.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

More big government by the democrats

It's stuff like that that makes me want to take up smoking just as a middle finger to big government.


From the AP


An outright ban on smoking in workplaces -- restaurants and bars included -- was approved by the House on Wednesday, giving anti-smoking activists their biggest victory in the Capitol so far.

Smoking would still be allowed in casinos, cigar bars, horse racetracks and bingo halls, under the legislation.

The bill faces opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate, where restaurant owners and other opponents are certain to try to kill it.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said she would support a workplace smoking ban.

The 56-46 House vote was the result of months of hearings and lobbying by anti-smoking groups who argued that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.


If smoking is so damn bad for you that government can not allow PRIVATE businesses to make a choice whether to allow it in their places far away from the people's republic of Lansing - than ban the damn things altogether. I oppose that as well, but I could respect that decision. This is just another instance of big government claiming to know best in how to regulate another person's privately owned business. With the way government is running their own ship and tax policies, we don't need their "help" in doing so.

As far as smoking itself goes, there are places here in Livingston County which do not allow smoking. The Copper Pickle banned it completely. That is their choice, and they should be entitled to make their choice. Other places rely on smokers for their business. That should be their choice at the same time. In fact this ban hurts existing smoke free places, as that is a niche they can use in their marketing.

The big government statists here aren't pushing to ban smoking in public buildings. That's already the case for the most part. Public buildings are government buildings. The statists are pushing to tell what private business are allowed to do on their own property. That's not right, and the senate needs to kill this turkey of a bill and keep the goon squads off the backs of private businesses.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Interesting News story on Campaign Finance

The Detroit News has a very interesting story, particulary for guys like me who follow the stuff in politics that nobody likes to follow - campaign finance. If you are a candidate in either party, this is a must read.

Brett McRae is always cleaning up after politicians.

When he was a student, he worked his way through law school as a janitor at the state House of Representatives. Now as a campaign finance consultant, the 50-year-old Charlotte man keeps elections clean.

"A person's political reputation can really be trashed by things that can be found in those filings," said McRae, "like if you were late or made a questionable expenditure or took money from someone you shouldn't have."



I don't belong to the same political party as McRae, but he's earned my respect. Guys like McRae, and his Republican counterpart at state party (who has stayed there through several chairs for obvious reasons), are the type of people that each candidate needs to talk to. Why? I'll let him say it.

"For a lot of campaigns, the financial reporting gets shuffled to the bottom of the deck," he said, even though late fees and penalties can be costly and mistakes can be politically embarrassing. "This way, the staff can concentrate on winning the election."


The worst campaign finance debacle I've seen was this, almost two years ago which I covered under. Why a good treasurer is a must. I sat on that information for two years before it was picked up by the papers. I didn't turn him in, since the state automaticly catched those who don't. The only people I told were Joe Hune's campaign who kept it quiet since there was no reason to attack. Joe was winning big, and his opponent was not running a credible campaign. I could have called the paper then, but I actually felt sorry for the guy. I don't think he knew what he was getting into.

Most candidates, of all parties, are completely ignorant when it comes to campaign finance matters. I do not mean that as an insult. Most just don't know all of the ins and outs of it. Like the candidates, I was baptized by fire when I was volunteered at 22 years old to be a PAC treasurer. I thought it was something easy. I didn't know what I was getting into. At the same time, it was one of the best things to happen to me. Today, I'm a veteran at this stuff, one of the go to guys in the party on this, and hopefully taught a few people some things as well. I'm proud of two things with my campaign finance work. I've never been fined for an error. That means I did not have any failure to files, or any late filings (nor indictments or convictions). I have not had an error or omissions notice in five years (mistakes since corrected). I still have a lot to learn, especially on federal matters, but I don't make many mistakes outside of being a little too cautious at times. I don't play games with this stuff.

I can also catch a lot of errors as well, and turned the MEA in for non-disclosure. I don't turn in everyone, even in the opposing party, but they knew better and I thought their non-disclosure was deliberate since they did not want their cards saying "East Lansing" on them.

In campaigns there are two things. There are things you can contol, and things you can't control. Campaign finance situations are things that can be controlled. THE most important thing a candidate can do is hire or get a good treasurer to volunteer for the campaign.

Michigan has full disclosure. That's something that is very important to know. There are a few people whose money I will stay the hell away from if I am running for political office. I will have a lot of explaining to do if I report donations from people like Mark Foley (obvious reasons), Josh Sugarmann (for anti-2nd Amendment views), or illegal sources. (Corporations, foreigners). Good Treasurers can screen this, and that goes double on the illegal sources.

For those interesting in running or forming PAC's, there are manuals on campaign finance laws at the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office. Click Here for Sec of State That is a must read if you are interesting in running.

If you run, know what you are getting into on this stuff and be prepared. All it takes is one major screw up to destroy the entire campaign. As the old saying goes, "Prior planning prevents poor performance."

Delphi wants to extend Chapter 11 protection until March

This calls for some concern. Hopefully this does not turn into Chapter 7 liquidation. From the AP

Delphi Corp. has sought a three-month extension of its right to control its bankruptcy reorganization, saying the credit crunch has made it difficult for the company to obtain Chapter 11 exit-financing.

In papers filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan late Friday, Delphi asked a judge to extend until March 31 its deadline to develop a Chapter 11 plan. That deadline currently is set to expire Dec. 31.

The company, the largest supplier of parts to General Motors Corp., also sought to move until the end of May its deadline to win creditors' support for the plan.

(snip)

Delphi has been in bankruptcy reorganization since October 2005. As credit markets have tightened recently, Delphi has scaled back the amount of money it intends to borrow to pay off its creditors. That has resulted in changes to its Chapter 11 plan and caused delays, it said.

In its court papers, Delphi cited "severe dislocations in the capital markets that began late in the second quarter of 2007 and that have increased in severity during the third and fourth quarters of 2007." Those financing difficulties, among other things, forced the company to offer its creditors repayment terms that were less generous than it initially expected.

Cash payments, for example, were reduced by $3 billion. The company amended its reorganization plan to instead give unsecured creditors, which are being paid mainly with new Delphi stock, the option to buy additional shares at a discount through a rights offering. GM will get a combination of cash, new debt and new convertible preferred stock.



I don't think I need to tell anyone how important Delphi is in Michigan.

Service tax gone, replaced with another screwing instead

This is a case of pick your poison. Instead of being hung, drawn and quartered, we're just getting the electric chair thanks to Granholm zapping this state to death with her Matt Millenesqe leadership.

Now we got 22% surcharge on all businesses that pay the MBT. Cought it up!

I should mention that the service tax DID become law for a brief period, but apparently, the legislature said that the service tax law could be ignored. I'm uncertain about that, and would need to read that in depth to see if the intent matches the actual words of the law. They aren't trustworthy enough for me to take their word for it.

FIRE GRANHOLM! FIRE DILLON! Fire the Democrats! Fire Millen! They make Jimmy Carter look almost competent.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Big Government at it again

A special "thanks" to the democrats and Mr Bush.

From the Detroit News

WASHINGTON -- House leaders agreed late Friday to hike fuel economy standards 40 percent by 2020 to a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon, a landmark deal that clears the way for a House vote by Wednesday.

The increase would be the first for passenger cars since 1985, marking a dramatic defeat for automakers, which have successfully foiled efforts to force increases for more than two decades.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., finalized an agreement for raising corporate average fuel economy standards during a telephone call Friday evening.

(snip)

The deal will be very expensive for automakers. GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner has said a similar bill could cost the Detroit automaker more than $40 billion over the next decade. A Bush administration analysis of a similar proposal said it could cost automakers more than $100 billion.

Automakers grudgingly decided to support it because there were no other options, and their political capital is waning. They have criticized the CAFÉ system, saying it distorts the marketplace by forcing them at times to offer incentives to sell smaller cars in order to meet the requirements.

(snip)

It will no doubt hike the price of cars by forcing automakers to add expensive items like gasoline-electric hybrid engines and likely require automakers to make more lighter, smaller vehicles. It may force Detroit to shrink production of its SUVs and trucks, its largest most profitable vehicles.

If passed, the bill would give Democrats a big achievement to tout to voters who have put up with skyrocketing gas prices.

It would also hand President Bush a domestic achievement that would surely be part of his legacy, since it largely dovetails with his State of the Union proposal in January to hike fuel efficiency standards by an average of 4 percent per year over 10 years.



This also doesn't do jack to lower gas prices. We need less big government and less democrat/Bush sneering of American cars. Let the market decide.

If you want to lower gas prices, the first thing to do is open up domestic energy sources. ANWR, Coal, and especially nuclear. Put more research into cold fusion, and then afterward tell OPEC to perform unnatural acts on themselves.