Many an article has been written about how the people want to “throw the bums out” in DC. According to this CQ article, Stuart Rothenberg isn’t buying that notion:

Surveys over the past couple of weeks have shown Republican former Rep. Mike Sodrel ahead of Democratic Rep. Baron P. Hill in Indiana by 8 points; in Maryland, Republican Andy Harris leads freshman Democrat Frank M. Kratovil Jr. by 13 points; GOP former Rep. Tim Walberg leads Democrat Mark Schauer in Michigan by 10 points; and Republican former Rep. Steve Chabot leading Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus by a whopping 17 points.

In addition, Rep. Timothy Bishop (D-NY) leads unknown challenger Randy Altschuler (R) by only 2 points, while controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is drawing 55 percent in an early ballot test against state Sen. Tarryl Clark (D).

I’m not surprised by these numbers with the exception of Tarryl trailing by that big a margin. Most analysts predicted Michele winning but I’m certain that they expected a tighter race, at least this early.

Most Minnesota pundits thought that the Michele-Tarryl fight would be the best fight of this election cycle. After seeing those polling numbers, and after seeing the results from Massachusetts’ special election, those pundits might revisit that.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Tim Walz’s seat got additional scrutiny. I wrote here that Rep. Walz voted for “the failed stimulus bill, the job-killing Cap and Tax bill and now the government takeover of the American health care system.”

If casting those three votes aren’t enough to put Walz’s seat at risk, then his telling EdMinn that voting for Pelosicare “was the easiest vote I ever cast” should put him at risk.

Just like Walz’s wounds are self-inflicted, so are Baron Hill’s. Hill’s defeat was essentially sealed after this incident:

I titled that post “Congressman, You Work For US…For Now.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that insulting one’s constituents isn’t part of the traditional path to re-election. That type of arrogance is the path to an early retirement.

Chris Cillizza is reporting that another Democrat will announce his retirement sometime this morning:

Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry is expected to announce his retirement tomorrow morning, according to three sources briefed on the decision. Berry will become the sixth Democrat in a competitive seat to leave in the last two months but the first to announce his retirement since the party’s special election loss in Massachusetts last Tuesday.

“The message coming out of the Massachusetts special election is clear: No Democrat is safe,” said National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain.

Berry, first elected in 1996, had been noncommittal about his re-election bid for months although, privately, his allies insisted he was planning to run for re-election.

It isn’t that people are convinced that Republicans will be the party of fiscal responsibility. It’s more that they’re certain that Democrats are the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

The first step in restoring fiscal sanity is getting rid of the most flagrant violators. Some of that will happen in GOP primaries. (Think Utah’s Robert Bennett.) That ‘cleansing’ might include Mike Pence, the third-ranking member of the House GOP, defeating Evan Bayh.

The bottom line is this: With Democrats controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., Democrats will be the bums getting thrown out if this is a ‘throw-the-bums-out’ election. HINT: That’s why we’ll see alot more retirements over the next 2-3 weeks.

Technorati: Pundits, Stuart Rothenberg, Chris Cillizza, Retirements, Marion Berry, Baron Hill, Tim Walz, Tarryl Clark, Evan Bayh, Democrats, Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

George Will’s column on climate change is the best explanation of what went wrong with the science supposedly supporting climate change. Here’s a blast that’s certain to leave a mark:

The Financial Times’ peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming “is growing more rather than less compelling.” If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” — this “moment” is in its second decade — “and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars, and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet’s fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

There’s no proof that these ’scientists’ go where the information takes them. For these ’scientists’, every tidbit of data is proof of global warming. Fortunately, some people appear to be taking the scientific process seriously:

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The next paragraph is the most telling:

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

That paragraph is what fear sounds like. It’s also what a guilty conscience sounds like. Al Gore and his followers in the scientific community have told us that the debate is over, that consensus of the (supposedly) most brilliant minds on climate change had been reached and that the world would end if their recommendations were followed like they were etched in stone on Mount Sinai.

Anytime a skeptic pointed to data that ridiculed their findings, the scientific community ridicule the scientists rather than argue the merits of their findings. The Met Office sounds like they aren’t even certain that the underlying data is accurate, which casts their conclusions in doubt. Let’s prove this by illustration.

Let’s suppose, instead, that a physician is given information from diagnostic test. The physician uses that information and the relevant case histories to determine a diagnosis. If the physician suddenly learns that the information from the diagnostic test might be significantly inaccurate, it isn’t unreasonable to think that that physician might rethink things. That physician might even start over.

Let’s return to the climate change scientists. Since their public position is that everything points to global warming that’s sure to end the world unless we dramatically change our habits, no re-examination happens. Their remedies don’t change. Their remedy constantly remains the same: a massive redistribution of wealth through an oppressive cap and trade bill is THE ONLY THING that will save Planet Earth.

People are increasingly skeptical of the all-data-points-to-the-end-of-the-world worldview. The net result is that Cap and Tax is dead in the water for the next 3-5 years minimum.

I can’t do better than Will’s summation so I’ll just leave you with this:

Copenhagen is the culmination of the post-Kyoto maneuvering by people determined to fix the world’s climate by breaking the world’s, especially America’s, population to the saddle of ever-more-minute supervision by governments. But Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth’s last chance, until the next one.

Technorati: Science, Peer Review, Climate Change, Consensus, Copenhagen, Cap And Trade, Al+Gore, Redistribution of Wealth, Kyoto, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Saturday afternoon, I attended Michele Bachmann’s Christmas party in St. Cloud. There she revealed what I already knew: that Speaker Pelosi has painted a big bullseye on Michele’s back. I think that’s because Speaker Pelosi hates Michele’s principled opposition to Speaker Pelosi’s radical agenda.

Michele’s principled opposition to Speaker Pelosi’s agenda is why liberal special interest groups are painting a big bullseye on Michele’s back, as Kathy Kersten writes here:

The buzz among Washington insiders is that Bachmann will be “the next Musgrave.” Guy Short, Musgrave’s former chief of staff, expects Democrats to pump millions of dollars into Minnesota to try to take Bachmann down in 2010. Her adversaries, he says, will work to drive up her unfavorable ratings to the point where voters finally growl, “Anybody but Bachmann.”

That’s already started, thanks to the Soros-funded CREW accusations. CREW’s accusations are filtering out to other organizations, one of which I wrote about here:

Stand Up America PAC has begun its petition and online advertising campaign imploring Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to take full responsibility for the illegal and disgraceful rally she organized this month on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

There’s just one flaw with Stand Up America PAC’s accusation. It doesn’t have anything to do with the truth:

Last month, she put a press release about a health care “House call” on her congressional website. After the event took place, CREW charged that she had violated House ethics rules, and the media, which routinely characterize CREW as a neutral watchdog group, picked up the story. A spokesman for the House Administration Committee confirmed that Bachmann had conformed to House rules.

That won’t stop Soros-funded yappers because they aren’t interested in the truth. They’ll say anything that they think will help defeat a principled conservative, especially principled conservatives like Michele.

What the Soros organizations haven’t figured out is that their smear campaigns won’t work this campaign. Admittedly, they work in normal years. THIS ISN’T A NORMAL YEAR. What’s important to people this cycle is fiscal conservatism. Simply put, tons of money in a campaign is helpful only if it’s used to put out an appealing message. The Sorosphere can’t overcome the hurdle of the Democrats’ radical agenda.

John Q. Public HATES Cap and Tax. John Q. Public HATES Obamacare. (That’s why it’s only getting 38% approval.) John Q. Public isn’t just mildly upset with those tax increases. They’re upset to the Nth degree with the Democrats’ irresponsible ideological agenda because it’s bankrupting America.

I’ve said that Soros-funded organizations are dirtbag organizations. They’re highly unethical. Their first priority isn’tthe truth. Their highest priority is doing whatever is needed to get other radicals elected. If that means lying, then that’s what’ll happen. Without hesitation or regret, they practice slash and burn politics.

When Stand Up America PAC accused Michele Bachmann of violating House rules, they didn’t bother checking with the House Administration Committee. If they had, they would’ve known that their accusation wasn’t the truth. A simple call would’ve resolved the issue. Stand Up America PAC didn’t even meet that minimal benchmark. How pathetic is that? More importantly, how telling is that?

It’s almost as if Stand Up America PAC isn’t interested in the truth.

Minnesota voters won’t be heading to the polls until November 2010, almost a year from now, but this machine is already pouring megabucks into a TV ad campaign attacking Bachmann. In the ad, an actress portraying the congresswoman greets voters with oil oozing from her hands. A frightened baby wails, and constituents glare with disgust at the sticky handprints she leaves on their backs. The message? Bachmann is a shill for Big Oil.

In addition to being ethically flexible, these Soros-funded organizations aren’t particularly bright. When energy independence was the chief issue in August, 2008, people agreed with the Republicans’ motto of Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less by a 3:1 margin. Running ads that tell people that Michele’s for energy independence isn’t exactly doing Tarryl a favor. In fact, it’s probably hurting her because it brings up her voting against lifting the Minnesota moratorium on nuclear power plants. I wrote here that Tarryl’s vote likely had more to do with gaining favor with the environmentalists than it had to do with sound energy policy:

By keeping that moratorium intact, Tarryl voted to keep the myth alive that we can replace baseload energy production with alternative energy products. In my estimation, Tarryl’s vote was politically motivated. She voted this way because she wanted to curry favor with the environmentalists. In my estimation, Tarryl’s vote didn’t have anything to do with responsible energy policy. The reason I think that is because Larry Haws, Larry Hosch and Al Doty all voted to lift the moratorium.

Every time that a liberal special interest group accuses Michele of being beholden to Big Oil, they’re giving me a perfect opportunity to remind people that Tarryl’s beholden to environmental extremists. I know this district a little. Based on that knowledge, I’m betting that Tarryl won’t like the results she gets from these special interest ads.

That’s why cookie cutter special interest ads don’t work well. It’s as if they think the oil companies are hated nationwide. That’s isn’t close to being majority opinion nationwide.

If these special interest groups want to spend money on ineffective ads, that’s their First Amendment right. It’s just that they won’t get much bang for their buck.

That’s because Michele Bachmann, the lady with the bullseye painted on her back, is a dynmaic politician with a large, passionate group of supporters. She’s also got a titanium spine to not crumple when the special interests take cheapshots at her.

Technorati: Big Oil, Special Interests, Stand Up America PAC, CREW, Tarryl Clark, Speaker Pelosi, DFL, Michele Bachmann, Fiscal Restraint, Conservatism, Election 2010

It isn’t often that I agree with Eugene Robinson but this time, I agree with him. His column E-mails Don’t Prove Warming is a Fraud is actually right, though not for the reasons he says.

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week, portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories, does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

He’s right in that the e-mails alone don’t prove that AGW is junk science. The fact that they’ve had to delete emails with contradictory information proves that AGW is junk science. The fact that John Holdren first discredited, then admitted that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were right that Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Graph is wildly inaccurate is proof that AGW is junk science.

Mr. Robinson’s column is predictable. He’s one of the most reliable, and brain dead, shills within the progressive movement, rivalling even Eleanor Clift, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd in that respect. That reliability is how he can say this without hesitation:

To plot temperatures going back hundreds or thousands of years, long before anyone was taking measurements, you need a set of data that can serve as an accurate proxy. The width of tree rings correlates well with observed temperature readings, and extrapolating that correlation into the past yields the familiar “hockey stick” graph, fairly level temperatures for eons, followed by a sharp incline beginning around 1900. This is attributed to human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting increase in heat-trapping atmospheric carbon dioxide.

While it’s true that scientists weren’t recording temperatures and patterns in 1000 A.D., when the Hockey Stick Graph starts, other data exists to prove that there have significant fluctuations in the earth’s temperatures. The Medieval Warm Period didn’t happen if you trust Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph. The MWP was followed by the Mini-Ice Age, which doesn’t exist according to the Hockey Stick Graph, either.

Considering the fact that Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones and others propose shutting out scientists that disagree with their analyses from the peer-review process isn’t dissimilar from Al Gore’s wild allegations, then his refusal to debate serious people on the subject. The people that suggest that they know more than other accredited scientists are blowhards and political ideologues.

Had Dr. Mann and Dr. Jones not used such extravagant trickery, they still would’ve been ridiculed. There are wild inaccuracies in their studies, inaccuracies that still haven’t been explained to anyone but the most devout AGW believers.

It would be great if this were all a big misunderstanding. But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago. The skeptics might have convinced each other, but so far they haven’t gotten through to the vanishing polar ice.

What we don’t know is whether one has to do with the other. Until there’s proof that one is caused by the other, we don’t have anything. Just because a group of ideologically-driven scientists say so doesn’t mean anything to John Q. Public.

Until these scientists start making decisions based SOLELY on proof, not politics, people will be justifiably skeptical.

Technorati: Science, Michael Mann, Hockey Stick Graph, Phil Jones, John Holdren, Al Gore, Ideologues, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Mini-Ice Age

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I just visited Tarryl’s campaign website just to check it out. I didn’t immediately put my finger on it but I sensed that there was something missing from it.

Yes, it has the obligatory About Tarryl page. It has a news page, which, BTW, is filled with union endorsements. There’s a “Contribute page”, too.

Then it dawned on me. Tarryl’s website is missing an issues page.

Why won’t Tarryl tell people what her positions are on card check, Cap and Tax and Pelosicare? I’ll stipulate that she doesn’t need a page explaining her position on taxes. I know that she’ll vote for the biggest tax increases without hesitation. If given the opportunity, she’ll vote for massive tax increases. I know that because that’s what she’s consistently done in the past.

Still, it’s quite possible to put a positions page together for Tarryl.

Given her past silent support for single-payer health care and her willingness to vote for huge tax increases, it’s reasonable to think that Tarryl would’ve voted for Pelosicare, though she would’ve had to have held her nose to vote for a bill including the Stupak Amendment.

Considering Tarryl’s supporters bragged about her 100 percent rating on the environment and considering the fact, again, that Tarryl doesn’t hesitate in voting for huge, job-killing tax increases, it’s reasonable to conclude that she would’ve voted for the job-killer known as Cap and Tax.

Considering the fact that Tarryl voted to increase state spending by 17 percent in 2007 at a time when the economy was slowing down, it isn’t a stretch to think that she would’ve enthusiastically supported President Obama’s irresponsible budget that’s producing unprecedented and unsustainable deficits.

Tarryl has highlighted the union endorsements she’s received. That’s understandable since they’re an important part of getting a DFL endorsement. Here’s the question voters should have: Will Tarryl represent the citizens of CD-6 or will she represent the union leadership’s interests?

There’s alot of blanks that voters need filled in about Tarryl, something that I’m willing to help do. (It’s obvious Tarryl won’t fill in the blanks herself since it’s been almost 4 months since she announced her candidacy.)

Let’s just hope that Tarryl starts filling in these important blanks. Tarryl’s actions say everything about Tarryl’s priorities: Tarryl has time for an interview with a lefty rag like the Daily Beast but Tarryl won’t tell Sixth District voters whether her priorities fit with the District’s priorities.

Hopefully, we’ll find that out soon. Until Tarryl takes the time to fill in the blanks, I’ll just study what she’s done in the past, then see if there are any parallels between her past votes and the issues she’d face in Congress.

BTW, the Daily Beast has featured such substantive articles like “Levi Johnston Gets a Porn Award” and “Catching Up With the Hipster Grifter”, a story about Kari Ferrell, who is serving six months for mail fraud and forgery.

Stop past this blog frequently to stay updated on the hiding Tarryl Clark. I’m doing the job that Tarryl refuses to do.

Technorati: Campaigns, Issues Page, Tarryl Clark, Daily Beast, Lefty Blogs, Hard Left Liberalism, DFL, Michele Bachmann, Conservatism, Election 2010

After reading this article, it’s difficult for me to tell whether Al Franken is just an ideologue or if he’s really that stupid. Here’s what he said that makes me think he’s that stupid:

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., called the House bill a “blueprint for a stronger economy.” “The legislation the House passed includes a renewable-energy standard similar to what Minnesota passed two years ago, incentives for more energy efficient products…and tax breaks for clean energy production,” Franken said in a statement. “This energy plan will lower your power bill, create jobs and whole new industries, and actually solve the problem.”

Sen. Franken is talking about the national energy tax bill that the House passed. Then-Sen. Obama said that, under his plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.” Rep. John Dingell said that the House legislation was “a tax and a great big one.”

Here’s my question for Sen. Franken: When was the last time that someone passed a “great big” tax that “would necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket” during a deep, long-lasting recession that strengthened an economy? Can Sen. Franken cite a single instance of this happening? Or is he simply reading from Harry Reid’s talking points? HINT TO SEN. FRANKEN: There’s a reason why Reid is trailing miserably in his re-election attempt.

At our 9/12 TEA Party, the central theme to Mike Beard’s speech was that great economies aren’t built by conserving. They’re built when energy is abundant and cheap. When I told King that, he quickly agreed with me. The two are inextricably linked. You can’t build a great economy with expensive energy prices.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said there are several proposals in the Senate that will merge into one for a floor debate. For her, she said, the focus has to be on energy independence. “We need to get control over our energy in America,” she said. But in doing so, she added, lawmakers have to ensure that middle-class Americans “don’t get socked with higher rates.”

Ensuring that “middle-class Americans ‘don’t get socked with higher rates’” eliminates cap and trade from consideration as part of our energy policy going forward. It simply doesn’t fit. If the Democrats water the bill down, then there isn’t enough incentive for companies to change their ways. If they don’t water down the legislation, then consumers get hit with high prices. It’s a ‘pick your poison’ moment.

The reality is that the best way to improve the environment is to lift the moratorium on nuclear energy. The best way to produce the cheap energy we need for a thriving economy is by opening up more of the OCS.

The reason that isn’t being done is because the Democrats, Sens. Franken and Klobuchar amongst them, don’t have the fortitude it takes to tell the environmental extremists to take a hike. Until Democrats do that, they’ll be beholden to these extremists.

That isn’t something we can afford.

Technorati: Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Cap And Trade, President Obama, Energy, Inflation, Unemployment, Tax Increase, Democrats

Appearing on CNN today, Huffington Post blogger David Sirota tried defending Van Jones. Calling his attempt a miserable failure is an insult to miserable failures. It’s also a fanciful dance around the truth. Here’s Sirota’s attempted defense of Communist-Truther Van Jones:

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Van Jones is a national hero for his work on green jobs. He’s known as an expert on energy policy, on economic policy. He’s somebody who made a mistake, who acknowledged that he made a mistake a long time ago, and he was tossed out by this White House.

And I think what we can learn from what happened is what this White House values and what this White House doesn’t value. The White House stuck by Tim Geithner as Tim Geithner was involved, the treasury secretary, in a tax scandal. He’s accepted gifts from the banking industry. The White House stood by him.

It’s rather fanciful that Mr. Sirota said that Van Jones made ONE mistake. Thanks to Jim Hoft’s great work at Gateway Pundit, we know that Jones was a 9/11 Truther, someone who saw the green jobs movement as a “complete revolution away from grey capitalism“, not to mention that Jones is someone who accused “white polluters” of directing poison into minority communities.

To say that Jones made a single mistake is insulting. The fact that Jones thought of the green jobs movement as a way to move us away from a capitalist society isn’t just a teentsy little mistake. It’s proof of a revolutionist, which he’s admitted to. The thought that a cabinet-level adviser could accuse white people of “directing poison into minority communities” isn’t just a tiny little mistake that should be overlooked. It’s something that thoughtful people everywhere, regardless of race or political leaning should express disgust and outrage over.

That’s before talking about Jones’s belief that the Bush administration knowingly let the 9/11 terrorist attacks happen. That’s before talking about his admitting that he’s a revolutionary and a communist.

Sirota would have us believe that all these transgressions, any of which would be grounds for not hiring and for terminating Jones, constitutes a single “mistake”. My message to Mr. Sirota is simple: YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!

If radical progressives like Mr. Sirota, Gov. Dean and Speaker Pelosi insist on defending Van Jones, they’ll quickly lose what little credibility they have left.

This isn’t a matter of Van Jones being just a little left of the American people. It’s a matter of him being far to the left of the American people, far enough left of them to shock them.

Finally, this is surely to be the storyline that radical progressives will want to create in the victimization of Van Jones. It’s up to honest conservatives to keep the facts in front of the American people. That’s a responsibility that requires persistence but it’s a responsibility we’re totally capable of handling.

Technorati: Van Jones, Communist, Truther, 9/11, Racist, Revolutionary, Radical, Howard Dean, Speaker Pelosi, David Sirota, Progressives, Spin

Cross-posted at California Conservative

According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, “Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.” Here’s more of the details on Scott’s polling:

• Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.
• A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.
• Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.
• Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

By an almost 3:1 margin, Americans favor keeping their money vs. paying more to “save the planet.” That’s nothing short of shocking. NOT!!! If Congress passes this bill and President Obama signs it into law, it will be just the latest proof that this Democratic administration and this Democrat Congress care more about their special interest allies than they care about the American people or science-based environmental policy.

Let’s be clear about something: This legislation isn’t about climate change. I think many of the people polled haven’t bought into the climate change hyperbole that Rep. Waxman and former VP Gore have been yapping about. That’s speculation on my part. What isn’t speculation is that this polling proves that people are significantly more worried about keeping money in their wallets than they are about saving the planet.

By a 3:1 margin, 63% to 22%, voters put a higher priority on policies that create jobs than on ’save the planet’ issues. If Republicans want to win this issue and draw big blocs of independent voters, they should stand firmly against the Democrats’ National Energy Tax.

I believe that this position is this year’s expression of last year’s anxiety over $4 a gallon gas prices. People haven’t stopped worrying about how high fossil fuel prices affect huge parts of their budget, whether it’s the gas they pump, their electric bills or higher grocery prices.

Democrats are painting themselves into a difficult corner with this. By passing this bill, Democrats are saying that they’re opposed to fossil fuels, that they’re ok with high gas prices and that they’re willing to pass legislation that drives companies from the United States and into China, Mexico and South Korea.

There’s a couple of reasons why that’s a difficult position to see, the biggest being that people care more about their wallets and the opportunity for prosperity than they care about ‘the environment’. Another reason why the Democrats’ position is a difficult position to defend is because driving businesses to other countries gives voters additional reasons for questioning the Democrats’ commitment to prosperity-inducing policies.

Simply put, this Democrat administration and this Democrat-controlled Congress are giving voters lots of reasons to question the Democrats’ economic stewardship.

Isn’t that the only question that voters will remember in November, 2010?

Technorati: Energy, Polling, National Energy Tax, Taxes, Tax Increases, Environment, Outsourcing, Unemployment, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Predictably, President Obama said today that he’s confident that the U.S. Senate will pass National Energy Tax legislation. Meanwhile, House GOP Leader John Boehner criticized the Waxman-Markey legislation for killing jobs and increasing taxes on the middle class.

Obama said House members who narrowly voted to pass the climate bill on Friday had put progress before petty Washington politics, and urged Senators to do the same ahead as they embark on a rocky road to their own vote.

“The House of Representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation,” Obama said, at an event in the White House announcing new plans to improve energy efficiency across the United States. “In the months to come, the Senate will take up its version of the energy bill. And I am confident that they, too, will choose to move this country forward.”

What the 219 representatives did wasn’t to put progress ahead of petty politics. They voted to increase taxes on the middle class, the working poor and small businesses.

This isn’t “an extraordinary piece of legislation.” It’s a huge job-killing tax increase that will kill jobs in hard hit places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Here’s House GOP Leader Boehner’s response to President Obama:

Americans need real solutions to create jobs, lower energy prices, and clean up the environment, but Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a recipe for driving up prices for middle-class families and small businesses and shipping more American jobs overseas. The President repeated his claim that this bill will create jobs, but independent analysts suggest it’s a job killer, while one of his prominent supporters, Warren Buffett, calls it a huge, regressive tax.

Republicans believe there is a better route to more jobs, reliable energy, and a cleaner, healthier environment. Our all-of-the-above plan will increase American energy production in an environmentally-safe way, encourage the use of alternatives such as nuclear and clean-coal energy, and promote new technologies and efficiencies. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress and the Administration have chosen to go it alone with their costly, jobs-killing national energy tax scheme. Middle-class families and small businesses struggling during this recession won’t support it. It’s time for Democrats to work with Republicans on real solutions to create jobs and pave the way for a cleaner, more reliable energy future.

Why would Democrats even think about bankrupting fossil fuel-burning power plants? Why would they want to kill the economies of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming and Kentucky while we’re in the midst of a terrible economy? Is it that Democrats don’t care about the blue collar workers in those states? Is it because they’re so blinded by their ideology that they refuse to rethink things? Or, perhaps, is it because they can’t afford to ignore the environmental extremists because they’ll need their campaign contributions?

I think it’s most of the above. I think they’re blinded by their ideology and I think they can’t afford to bite the hand that writes the campaign contributions. (You’ve noticed that they didn’t give consideration to doing what’s right for the country, right?)

The White House certainly will try justifying their actions with clever spin. The bad news for the Obama administration is that people are tired of the spin. The worst news for the Obama administration is that people are tired of his administration not producing cost-effective solutions.

Thus far, the Obama administration hasn’t shown that they’re problem solvers. Thus far, the only thing they’ve proven is that they’re world class ideologues.

That won’t cut it when people’s wallets are stretched to the breaking point.

Technorati: Energy, Environment, Tax Increases, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, President Obama, Elections, Democrats, John Boehner, Republicans

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Last week, I got word that the EPA and the Obama administration appears to be suppressing dissent within the career professional ranks at EPA. I finally found time to post about it. Here’s a portion of Joe Barton’s press release on the subject:

EPA has not yet released the final, suppressed report that was written by career EPA staffers Dr. Alan Carlin and Dr. John Davidson, an MIT Ph.D. economist and a University of Michigan Ph.D. physicist, respectively. But here’s some of what they write in the 80-page draft report:

We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies…have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.

…we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject.

After reviewing uncertainties, they note, at page 62:

Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from the changes in GHG [greenhouse gas] levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act…

There is strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998 temperature peak… This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the DRAFT TSD [EPA’s technical support document].”

Resolving the remaining uncertainties would appear to be of great importance before significant expenditures are made on the assumption that the GHG only hypothesis is correct…The currently favored GHG only hypothesis does not explain a number of aspects of the available data so it appears unlikely to be the sole explanation. There is an urgent need to update and improve on the IPCC reports by taking an independent perspective and including new information not included in their reports concerning all the factors summarized.

Why was Dr. Carlin’s opinion not noted in the EPA’s report? Why was Dr. Davidson’s opinion not noted in the report? These gentlemen are career EPA people. Their opinions and their questions should be noted.

I’d further suggest that EPA Administrator Jackson isn’t interested in the facts being presented. Let’s remember that she tried selling the National Energy Tax as a jobs bill, only to get discredited by Rep. Steve Scalise’s questioning:

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created, green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, Sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would, that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.

I suspect that Administrator Jackson is making this stuff up as she goes. She’s willing to make any statement that she thinks will sell this gigantic tax increase. It isn’t a stretch to think that she’ll omit statements that she thinks hurt this bill’s passage. It’s certainly provable that she made a flimsy argument to strengthen this bill’s support. At this point, why should people trust anything she says?

Rep. Barton empties both barrels in this section:

The agency gave the authors only a few days to comment on the agency’s science basis for its proposed endangerment finding. No one understands the rush on such an important topic, but the authors outline six important developments in climate research and climate observations that cut against the IPCC view and warrant EPA’s own close examination:

1. Global temperatures have declined significantly
2. IPCC global temperature projections look increasingly doubtful
3. Consensus on past, present, and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed
4. There have been changes in the outlook of Greenland’s ice sheet
5. Long-term water vapor feedback may be negative – thus dampening climate response to greenhouse gases
6. Greenhouse gas contributions to global warming may be much smaller than alleged by the IPCC and others, due to recent understanding related to solar influence and cycles of ocean-climate cycles (like El Nino).

Administrator Jackson’s behavior isn’t surprising. It’s quite predictable, actually. Anything or anyone that doesn’t agree with the environmental extremists’ views are either ignored or publicly ridiculed. In this instance, the extremists tried ignoring Dr. Carlin and Dr. Davidson.

Thankfully, bloggers won’t let this get buried. Thankfully, bloggers like myself and Powerline and others will hold the EPA’s feet to the fire.

Here’s the conclusion of Rep. Barton’s letter:

By all indications to date, the administration had reached a politically viable judgment on endangerment and preferred to suppress dissent from within the ranks of its professional staff rather than take the time to consider the professional staff’s views.

It isn’t a stretch to think that the EPA started with a verdict, then went in search of proof that fit their pre-determined verdict. Not only isn’t it a stretch; I’d say that’s what likely happened. Now they’ll have to dine on an entree of crow.

That’s what happens when bureaucrats try playing politics with scientific issues.

Technorati: Taxes, National Energy Tax, Energy, Environment, Lisa Jackson, EPA, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Democrats, Alan Carlin, John Davidson, Science, Joe Barton, Steve Scalise, Republicans

Cross-posted at California Conservative