DISCLAIMER: I am a member of Tom Emmer’s Steering Committee.

During Monday’s livechat, Marty Seifert was asked this question:

I have heard some talk about your views on cap and trade, that you would not vote for that…but how come you voted for an energy bill while serving in the state legislature?

Here’s Mr. Seifert’s response:

Marty Seifert: The energy bill you are referring to was not a cap and trade bill. 39 of 49 House Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Emmer’s supporters Laura Brod and Matt Dean. I am not for cap and trade any more than those two solid Republicans are. Governor Pawlenty negotiated this bill which started out much worse than the final product. My energy plan is to lift the nuclear moratorium and expand affordable energy choices. I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme.

I wanted to gather some information on M-RETS before forming an opinion so I did some research into M-RETS, (which stands for Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System). Here’s one of the first tidbits of information I found out about M-RETS:

The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) tracks renewable energy generation in participating States and Provinces and assists in verifying compliance with individual state/provincial or voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and objectives. M-RETS is an important tool to keep track of all relevant information about renewable energy produced and delivered in the region.

Currently, several States and Provinces participate in M-RETS: Illinois, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have policies in place requiring or strongly encouraging utility development of renewable resources. Additional States and Provinces in the region are expected to join M-RETS after launch. M-RETS uses verifiable production data for all participating generators and creates a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh.

In other words, the legislation authorizes the tracking of how much reneewable energy is being generated and the creation of something called a renewable energy credit. This sounded suspiciously similar to the carbon credits that will be traded if Cap and Trade is ever enacted so I contacted an expert in the energy field. This expert said that this type of infrastructure could turn out to be a preliminary step towards establishing a Cap and Trade program.

To be fair, this expert said that establishing a Cap and Trade program isn’t a guarantee. During this exchange, it was confirmed that this legislation isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just about increasing renewable energy production.

The next logical step, I was told, was enacting legislation mandating a certain level of renewable energy production. While that might sound good, the reality is that renewable energy is significantly more expensive than energy created by coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

According to this website, there are some benchmarks that they want to achieve. Here’s a couple of interesting tidbits of information that should be considered:

The standard for Xcel Energy requires that eligible renewable electricity account for 30% of total retail electricity sales (including sales to retail customers of a distribution utility to which Xcel Energy provides wholesale service) in Minnesota by 2020. Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy in 2020, “at least” 25% must be generated by wind-energy or solar energy systems, with solar limited to no more than 1% of the requirement. The solar provision was added by S.B. 550 in May 2009. In effect, this means that the wind standard is at least 24%, solar may contribute up to 1%, and the “remaining” 5% may be generated using other eligible technologies.

In other words, if legislation passes that changes the goals to mandates, Minnesotans’ utility bills will significantly increase. It’s important to remember that this isn’t about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, though the activists that push Cap and Trade are the activists that pushed this legislation through.

Finally, Seifert’s mention that Matt Dean and Laura Brod voted for this legislation is irrelevant. First, this is about the voting decision Marty Seifert made as opposed to the voting decision Tom Emmer made. In this instance, Tom Emmer voted against more expensive energy bills for Minnesota’s taxpayers. Second, according to the House Journal’s recording of the final vote, Matt Dean voted against the final passage of the bill along with Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Chris DeLaForest, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson, Ron Shimanski and Kurt Zellers.

The information in this paragraph can’t be ignored:

Utilities are required to file annual compliance reports with the PUC detailing their retail sales, REC retirements, and REC trading activities. If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant, the commission may order the utility to construct facilities, purchase eligible renewable electricity, purchase RECs or engage in other activities to achieve compliance. If a utility fails to comply, the PUC may impose a financial penalty on the utility in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of achieving compliance. The penalty may not exceed the lesser of the cost of constructing facilities or purchasing credits and proceeds must be deposited into a special account reserved for energy and conservation improvements. The PUC is authorized to modify or delay the implementation of the standards if the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.

I’d love hearing Mr. Seifert explain how this mandate is substantially different from a cap and trade system. Specifically, I’d like to know whether this isn’t just another way to wean us from fossil fuels.

Technorati: Energy, Cap And Trade, Renewable Energy, M-RETS, Renewable Energy Credits, Marty Seifert, Activists, Environmentalists, Tom Emmer, MNGOP

Wednesday night, President Obama met his match. In a speech that was touted as President Obama’s pivot to the center, President Obama delivered a ’stay the course’ message that sounded like an ‘I told you so’ speech. Instead of admitting the failure of his stimulus bill, he bragged about how the bill saved jobs even though there’s no way of verifying the accuracy of the statistics. Here’s what he said in talking up the ’successes’ of the stimulus:

Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two-hundred-thousand work in construction and clean energy. Three-hundred-thousand are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

Rather than changing his condescending tone, he’s returned to insulting America’s intelligence. Let’s remember that Recovery.gov’s statistics includes money spent in 440 non-existent House districts. Now we’re supposed to trust President Obama’s recitation of information that’s both unverifiable and self-serving? I’ll pass on that.

Compare that recitation of public jobs theoretically saved with Gov. McDonnell’s statement of the conservative gospel on how to create jobs:

Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector’s ability to create new jobs. We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world. What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.

When people compare President Obama’s strategy for creating jobs with Gov. McDonnell’s perscription, I’m betting that more people will agree with Gov. McDonnell than with President Obama. Frankly, I’ll bet that, if it was polled on that specific question, Gov. McDonnell would win by a 2:1 margin, if not by a bigger margin.

Here was another part of President Obama’s speech that didn’t fit with reality:

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

I’m not arguing that small businesses create the jobs. I’m just suggesting that the policies this Democratic congress and this administration have tried enacting would’ve decimated small businesses. The taxes from the Cap and Trade bill would’ve caused energy prices to spike at a time when people were already living paycheck to paycheck. The taxes included in the Democrats’ health care bills would’ve crippled the finances of middle class families and small businesses.

Gov. McDonnell’s response to President Obama’s job creation policies hit home with great force:

Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.

Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs ‘immediately’ and hold unemployment below 8%. In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.

The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household. This is simply unsustainable. The President’s partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.

Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.

TRANSLATION: President Obama’s and the Democratic majority’s approach is totally wrong. That’s why we lost 3,000,000 jobs last year.

It’s refreshing to see, too, Gov. McDonnell rightly say that the fastest path to prosperity is to stop government from doing too much and by restoring government to its constitutional boundaries. In fact, Gov. McDonnell isn’t just right; he’s EXACTLY right about that.

This section might be the most disfunctional section of President Obama’s speech:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

First, let me say that I’ll applaud President Obama if he fights for building new nuclear power plants and opening up the OCS for oil and natural gas exploration. If President Obama is serious about those initiatives, I’ll gladly be his ally.

The test for President Obama on those initiatives will come when his leadership is needed to pass legislation that features robust oil exploration and creates the next generation of nuclear power plants.

I didn’t expect President Obama to give up on Cap and Trade. I’d just hoped he’d set that aside because it’s a jobkiller. That isn’t theory. It’s what President Obama said on the campaign trail:

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Why would a president, or any policymaker for that matter, want to pass legislation that will cause bankruptcies, especially with 10 percent unemployment, the highest it’s been in almost thirty years?

President Obama clearly isn’t interested in the message voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia sent him. He got humiliated by those defeats, yet he’s still defiant on health care:

I took on health care because of the stories I’ve heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who’ve been denied coverage; and families, even those with insurance, who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our first lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress, our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

First, the CBO thing is insulting. The Democrats’ legislation won’t lower deficits but it will raise taxes on middle class families and small businesses. The CBO, in fact, says that it won’t lower premiums or health care costs. The only legislation that meets that criteria is Paul Ryan’s Patients’ Choice Act.

Second, the Democrats’ plan wouldn’t “would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.” In fact, the Democrats’ legislation would penalize people who bought HSAs.

Here’s how Gov. McDonnell addressed health care:

Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes. We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.

And our solutions aren’t thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests. In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.

The differences between the Democrats’ legislation and the Republicans’ plan couldn’t be more stark. Republicans posted their plan on the internet months ago. The Democrats negotiated special deals with special interest groups behind closed doors in the White House. That’s why, to this day, we’re still not certain what’s in the Democrats’ bill.

A couple weeks ago, President Obama blustered that he was prepared to have a big fight with Republicans on health care. I suspect that that’s either putting the best spin he could on the issue or he’s really delusional enough to think that that’s a winning fight for Democrats. If I were a Republican and my Democratic opponent wanted a fight over health care, I’d love having that fight.

Finally, this post wouldn’t be complete without mentioning President Obama crossing the line when he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United v. the FEC case:

But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words “not true” while President Obama was letting fly with this flourish. Democrats have rallied to President Obama’s side:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

“All you have to do is read the dissent, the four justices who said this will defintely open the floodgates to big corporate special interests. Anybody who thinks that’s not true is out of touch with the American political process.” Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen told POLITICO he expects to unveil the package in the next 10 days to two weeks.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was glad the president called out the Supreme Court.

“He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn’t like it he can mouth whatever they want,” Weiner said. “These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone’s going to call you out on it.”

Justice Alito wasn’t disagreeing that special interest groups would be able to speak their minds during election cycles. He was arguing against President Obama saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling would allow foreign corporations and “foreign entities” from contributing to candidates.

I’m surprised that Rep. Weiner would be this open about his disdain for the First Amendment. That’s what he’s saying. I’d further suggest that I don’t recall a point in history when a legislator “called out” a Supreme Court ruling this publicly.

This is the perfect illustration that Democrats still think the public is on their side. Neither President Obama’s speech nor Sen. Schumer’s or Rep. Weiner’s reaction suggests that they’re the least bit chastened after 3 humiliating defeats.

President Obama and congressional Democrats had the opportunity to pivot away from the lunatic left Wednesday night. Instead of breaking with them, it was like a married couple renewing their vows. If this is the face that the Democratic Party puts forward this fall, the word bloodbath will be associated with this election.

For all the praise President Obama gets for being a great orator, he certainly got his backside handed to him by Gov. McDonnell Wednesday night. Gov. McDonnell was charismatic and persuasive while President Obama sounded like the same broken record of the past 6 months.

Technorati: SOTU, President Obama, Health Care, Jobs, Stimulus, Cap And Trade, Tax Increases, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Democrats, Bob McDonnell, Republicans, SCOTUS, First Amendment, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Jim Carville and Paul Begala haven’t had an original thought in almost 20 years. Their scorched earth campaign strategies sound whiny on the best of days. Jim Carville’s op-ed in this morning’s Financial Times tells Democrats that Martha Coakley would’ve won the Massachusetts special election if they would’ve pointed their fingers at President Bush more. Now he’s telling Democrats to adopt a ‘it’s all Bush’s fault’ campaign strategy:

Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss or for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.

I hope Democrats take Mr. Carville’s advice. Nothing says ‘we don’t have ideas’ quite like looking backwards. The country knows that the financial crisis happened on President Bush’s watch. They’re more worried about fixing this country’s problems. People will ignore the blame game messages if they aren’t followed by common sense solutions, something that the Democrats are in extremely short supply of.

Elections are about the future, especially this one. People have noticed that the Democrats’ policies have made things worse, not better. Seniors know that cutting Medicare by $460,000,000,000 will limit the amount of health care that they get.

Blaming President Bush won’t win back seniors.

People have noticed that the $787,000,000,000 stimulus plan hasn’t created jobs, that it’s only created mountains of debt. Holding health care negotiations behind closed doors without any GOP input has turned off independents.

Blaming President Bush for starting the recession won’t win back those independents.

Complaining about President Bush’s deficits won’t get much traction because the Democrats’ record on deficits since retaking Congress in 2006 has been terrible. Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey point out the foolishness of that strategy. Here’s what Jim has to say on the matter:

During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.

But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of 2009 that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.

Here’s Ed’s take on what will have more impact in 2010:

While the Democrats desperately keep hold of their favorite cartoon villain, who is as relevant to American politics now as Bill Clinton, Republicans have Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and that’s going to be much more likely to resonate with voters in 2010. The midterms will be a referendum on both politicians and the radical direction of their leadership and agenda. Which will voters care about more, a former President who has no impact on the political agenda of the federal government, or the two people who attempted to conduct a takeover of 1/6th of the American economy while ignoring the loss of 3.4 million jobs?

Call me fickle but I’m betting that voters will take whatever frustrations they have out on Democrats, not Republicans.

Simply put, I pray that Democrats employ Carville’s strategy. Combining the Democrats’ failed policies of the past 4 years with an incessant whining that essentially says that they don’t have solutions is a great way of saying that Democrats are the party of no solutions.

Why vote for people that won’t put in place policies that create jobs?

Technorati: Elections, James Carville, Paul Begala, Blame Bush, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Unemployment, Deficits, Stimulus, Banking Crisis, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

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

It isn’t a mistake to say that Collin Peterson, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson are a band of idiots. Each of them voted for legislation that will raise taxes on their constituents. In exchange for their abandoning their principles, each got concessions.

Peterson accepted his thirty pieces of silver after getting a couple minor concessions on disposing of manure. Landried accepted her thirty pieces of silver by putting together the second Louisiana Purchase. Last, and certainly the most expensive, was Sen. Nelson getting major concessions on Medicaid payments from the federal government.

If these sound like great deals, think again.

In Rep. Peterson’s case, yes, he got a couple superfluous concessions. That’s what HE got. Unfortunately, if Cap and Tax is signed into law, his constituents will get higher gas prices and higher home heating and electric bills. That isn’t a fair tradeoff.

In Sen. Landrieu’s case, she got $300,000,000 in additional federal payments for the proposed Medicaid expansion. If that sounds like a good deal, think again. Once that $300,000,000 runs out in 3-4 years, then Louisiana gets stuck with a major expansion of Medicaid. Not only that but Louisiana residents will be subjected to higher insurance premiums, higher taxes and higher health care costs.

In Sen. Nelson’s case, he got a major concession on Medicaid. His constituents get a huge spike in insurance premiums and higher taxes.

In addition, everyone across the United States, especially the generations that are coming up next, get saddled with hundreds of billions of dollars of new debt, which will lead to higher inflation and bigger tax increases.

The good news is that Rep. Peterson, Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Nelson got concessions. The bad news is that We The People get stuck with paying for their concessions. If that doesn’t sit right with you, then the right response is to vote these spineless politicians out the next time they’re up for re-election.

Technorati: Medicaid, Cap And Trade, Sellouts, Collin Peterson, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Deficits, Tax Increases, Health Care Costs, Democrats, Elections

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

Lately, there’s been a slew of articles about the CD-6 race ostensibly between incumbent Michele Bachmann and challenger Tarryl Clark. One article talks about this being a proxy war between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Another highlights the fact that Al Franken is supporting Tarryl.

While people are writing about those aspects of the race, I tend to think that the more telling tale is that Michele is a threat to Pelosi’s Democrats, persistently hounding them for their votes:

Conservative site WorldNetDaily is running a campaign to send members of Congress a “pink slip” warning that if they vote for “government health care,” “cap and trade,” “hate crimes,” or “any more spending,” their “real pink slip will be issued in the next election.” Since September, WorldNetDaily has offered to send pink slips to all 535 members of Congress on behalf of readers for a price of $29.95.

The organizers of the campaign held a press conference on Tuesday to announce that it had sent out 5 million pink slips. The press conference, held on Capitol Hill, was attended by Republican politicians including Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“This is part of the reason…why we haven’t seen this legislation on health care come through earlier,” said Bachmann, who received the pink slips along with all other congressmen. “People are shocked that 5 million people have taken the time and the money…to send these pink slips.”

The DCCC will target Michele this year…again. They’ll do it more because they’d love to get rid of Michele’s ability to attract attention to their most controversial legislation. That’s easier said than done.

Even if the Democrats bring their A game, it’s still unlikely they’ll defeat Michele. Before we get started with the makeup of the Sixth District, it’s important that we highlight that this election cycle favors Republicans. The Agenda Media’s pundits will try selling the fact that that’s mostly because that’s the historical trend in a new president’s first midterm.

While that’s certainly true, the reality is that there’s more at work than just midtermitis. Earlier this month, suburban and independent voters in New Jersey and Virginia threw the Democrats overboard, reversing the trend from 2006 and 2008. Most of these voters abandoned Democrats because they’re seeing how fiscally irresponsible the Democrats have been this term. In the House, especially, Democrats have voted for the failed stimulus bill, a job-killing cap-and-trade bill and the health care monstrosity in addition to passing President Obama’s overbloated budget.

After plugging Tarryl’s record of voting for job-killing tax increases, her unwillingness to find savings in the budget and her record of voting for big spending increases into this equation, you’ve got a an uphill climb to make in the Sixth District. Factor in Tarryl’s staunchly pro-choice history and the Sixth District just isn’t a good fit for Tarryl.

One line of attack Michele’s detractors will employ is to remind people of controversial things Michele has said. The defense against that is reminding people that Michele voted against Cap-And-Trade, against the irresponsible Pelosicare and the failed stimulus bill while voting to increase domestic energy production, including increased nuclear energy production.

Another ‘outside’ factor weighing into this fight, albeit on the periphery, is the incompetence of the Obama administration. Saying that Recovery.gov is a laughingstock is understatement. While Recovery.gov is a laughingstock, it wouldn’t exist without the Democrats’ failed stimulus bill. Adding to the Democrats’ image of incompetence is the administration’s announcement about new restrictive guidelines on mammograms.

Factor these things together and it’s looking like Michele will finally be running with the wind at her back. This undoubtedly will be a race to watch. That doesn’t mean it’ll be as tight a race as some pundits think it will be.

Technorati: Elections, Economy, Energy, Spending, TEA Parties, Fiscal Restraint, Michele Bachmann, Norm Coleman, Conservatism, MNGOP, Tarryl Clark, Speaker Pelosi, Al Franken, tax Increases, Cap And Tax, Pelosicare, Stimulus, Democrats, Election 2010

If ever conservatives needed proof that God loved them, I’d submit that this WSJ article is proof positive. Here’s what I’m basing my opinion on:

Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday.

Climate legislation will be taken up “some time in the spring,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday after a Democratic caucus meeting.

Bringing up Cap And Trade next spring is perfect for Republicans. They couldn’t script it better than this. With the dollar weakening and with gas prices rising steadily, bringing up a bill that President Obama said would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrockocket” doesn’t seem like a bright move if you’re looking for career longevity. (QUESTION: which senator isn’t looking for longevity?)

Usually, gas prices drop once they switch from processing boutique fuels but they’re expected to keep rising because of the weak dollar. The good news is that, according to my go-to guy on energy (Rep. Mike Beard), the good news is that those of us who heat with natural gas will see our heating bills stay mostly unchanged. Mike said that people heating with heating oil will likely see a rise in prices.

What this means is that, if Sen. Reid rolls this bill out according to his announced time, he’ll be trotting it out while gas prices are high. The public opposes the bill, mostly because they think it’s based on junk science, but also because it’ll cost them fistfuls of money.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I hope Sen. Reid follows through on this and that 55-58 Democratic senators vote for cloture on this.

That would be proof indeed that God loves conservatives.

Technorati: Energy, Gas Prices, Heating Oil, Natural Gas, Tax Increase, Harry Reid, President Obama, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

When I read about this poll, I tried thinking what this poll is telling President Obama. I believe what it’s telling him is (a) he’d better start putting pro-growth policies in place and (b) his stimulus bill is an outright failure. Here’s the polling I’m refering to:

Forty-five percent (45%) of U.S. voters now give President Obama poor marks for his handling of the economy, the highest level of disapproval this year.

When I first read it, I reread it because I wanted to make sure it said 45 percent of those polled said President Obama’s handling of the economy was poor, not 45 percent said it was poor or fair. Let’s refer to this group as the evidence-based group. Let’s refer to this group as the Hopey-Changey Group:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% believe the president is doing a good or excellent job on the economy following the announcement last week that unemployment in October rose to 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years.

How can unemployment have by almost 3 points, how can 3,000,000 jobs be lost and these people poll say that President Obama is doing a good or excellent job? The only thing that jumps to mind is that most of the people in this group are hardcore Obama supporters who think he can’t do wrong no matter what the proof tells them.

If things don’t change dramatically in the next 11 months, Democrats will get tied to the disastrous economy, which is justified. It’s justified because they voted for President Obama’s economic blueprint. It’s justified because they voted for Cap and Tax. It’s justified because they’ve just voted for a health care bill that will hurt the economy with $729,000,000,000 in new taxes.

Let’s remember that Ms. Pelosi became Speaker in January, 2007. America isn’t better off now than they were in 2007. It’s far worse off now.

This poll, coupled with the TEA parties, carries a message: We screwed up in 2006 and 2008. It’s time we fixed it.

The people aren’t yet saying that Republicans should be rewarded because they were less disastrous than the Democrats. Still, we’re heading in a pro-GOP direction, mostly because they’re viewed as more sane than the Democrats and also because Republicans aren’t ignoring the people. They’re actually listening to them. That’s why this will be a very good year for the GOP.

State legislatures will flip back to GOP control. The GOP will experience a net gain in governor seats. More importantly, they’ll win back alot of House seats, possibly enough to make John Boehner the Speaker. Democrats will lose at least 3 seats in the Senate, starting with Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Blanche Lincoln and possibly the Burris and Gillibrand seats.

President Obama should treat this poll as a warning shot from the American people that they aren’t happy with his economic policies. It’s their way of saying that they’re tired of rising unemployment, unprecedented deficits and almost-nonexistent economic growth. If President Obama continues his stay-the-course path, he’ll earn the distrust of more and more independents.

If Democrats think that they won’t pay a price for their arrogance, they’ll find out that they’re wrong. Poor policies, lousy results, a liberal sprinkling of arrogance and the Democrats’ unwillingness to listen will take a toll on the Democrats, a toll which will be blatantly obvious on Election Night, 2010.

Technorati: Economy, President Obama, Unemployment, Tax Increases, cap And Tax, Health Care, Speaker Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Roland Burris, Blanche Lincoln, Democrats, Polling, TEA Parties, John Boehner, Republicans, Election 2010

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