That’s the headline for this LA Times op-ed by Jacob Heilbrunn. I’ve never suspected that ‘Big Oil’ was causing our problems but it was a nice shot in the arm to see that headline in the LA Times. The downside is that Heilbrunn still advocates using less energy instead of producing more:

The recent past suggests that, in fact, efforts to influence the supply of energy can actually boomerang, driving up prices and consumption. Rather than demonize Big Oil, lawmakers should focus on tamping down demand.

Had Mr. Heilbrunn taken an all of the above approach, I might’ve praised him. Instead, he took the liberal ‘we must do more with less’ approach. He had the chance to ignore the global warming myth but he didn’t. Too bad. To be fair, though, he makes some worthwhile points. Here’s one of those points:

Consider Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has been lambasting “oil barons” as though we were back in the bad old days of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil cornering the market. He is touting a Consumer-First Energy Act that would, among other things, punish oil producers with a complicated 25% windfall profits tax and create a government program to reinvest that money in renewable energy, perhaps with some of the same companies. That’s too much government, too little common sense.

Anytime the government strongarms the ‘free’ market into doing something, the result is predictably disastrous. Likewise, anytime Harry Reid has a solution to a problem, rest assured of the fact that it’ll make matters worse. (continue reading post »)

Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial. Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here’s how Mr. Brown first frames his question:

After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Two paragraphs later, here’s how he continues his argument:

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.

Politics or Presentation?

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills. (continue reading post »)

It’s obvious that we’re heading for a showdown between Senate Democrats and ‘Big Oil’. The Senate is ratcheting things up with their (non) energy plan. Here’s a few details of their non-plan:

The Democrats’ energy package also would:

• Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
• Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
• Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

This isn’t productive. Then again, the Democrats have been unproductive for the most part since retaking the majority. (I’m thankful for that because their agenda is radical.) As I said here, increasing taxes on oil companies while preventing them from producing more oil here at home is counterproductive.

The only thing it’s good for is to have Democrats thump their chests and say ‘We’re punishing evil big oil’. It apparently isn’t important that they’ve done nothing to be part of the solution. In fact, it apparently isn’t that important that they’re part of the problem. (continue reading post »)

This article is proof that Republicans are turning up the heat on Democrats with regard to increasing oil exploration. I said here that pushing that agenda will put Democrats in oil hell. I’m still confident that it’s a lose-lose situation for Democrats.

“At the end of the day, I think we need to make a decision, while we’re increasing our technological capability in this country and while we’re moving to sort of wean ourselves off such dependency on fossil fuels, do we want to have more reserves that we’re dependent upon here in our country or do we want to continue to ship billions and trillions of dollars overseas?” Corker asked rhetorically.

He said there was “a very simple answer.”

“We can do that certainly in environmentally safe ways. That’s the only way it should be done,” said Corker. “But we’ve had our head in the sand.”

Alexander (R-TN), in agreement with Corker, said Congress should allow oil exploration in Alaska’s Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as exploration offshore. He said drilling in Alaska would produce 1 million barrels of crude oil a day. (continue reading post »)

Anyone who’s read this website knows that my first choice for president was Fred Thompson. Since that didn’t work out the way I’d hoped, I’m thankful that he didn’t just disappear back to Hollywood. We need Fred to continue advocating conservatism’s core principles. That’s precisely what he did in this column.

We’ve heard alot recently that we’d have to remake the GOP brand, whatever that’s supposed to be. I suspect the people saying it really mean that conservatives need to abandon conservatism. I’ve rejected that as utter nonsense. I’m not alone in the Right Blogosphere, either. The best news is that Fred Thompson thinks it’s BS, too:

We know that we were given a country based upon certain eternal truths, the wisdom of the scriptures and the wisdom of the ages, the fact that there is such a thing as human nature that has to be taken into account when governing, and most fundamentally, based upon the fact that people are meant to be free. Our founders derived from these principles a government that had its powers separated, checked and balanced because they knew that power tended to corrupt. In keeping with that they incorporated in our Constitution a system of Federalism to make sure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government, which was given delineated powers and no others.

When we see government burdening us with unnecessary regulations, it’s imperative that we fight against it. When we see government attempting to burden us with trillion dollar tax increases, we must fight against it. (continue reading post »)

Lieberman-Warner is headed for a humiliating defeat thanks to the hard work of Sen. Jim Inhofe. Here’s what Stephen Moore wrote in this morning’s Political Diary:

Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.

Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. “With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,” says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. “This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

I’ve maintained that Harry Reid has the worst political instincts I’ve ever seen. This verifies that belief. There’s no worse time to propose a monstrous job-killing energy tax increase than when gas is almost $4 a gallon, diesel is almost $5 a gallon and when many important electoral states’ economies rely on coal for powering their factories.

Captain Ed nails that last point in this post:

With Barack Obama already facing an uphill fight in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and so on, they can ill afford to have the party associated with efforts to push the Rust Belt and the Midwest into a painful, years-long recession.

This week, I sent Sen. Coleman several emails to express my opinion on this bill. One of the things that I said about the bill is that its economic repercussions would be devastating but that the political repercussions would be even worse. Even if gas wasn’t at $4 a gallon, this legislation would face an uphill fight. The hill it faces when gas is $4 a gallon would feel like Everest in comparison.

I found Mr. Clifton’s comparing Lieberman-Warner to HillaryCare amusing because we know how that started with promise and ended with House Democrats the minority party for the first time in 40 years.

I said here that Republicans should run on the issue of opening up federal lands and offshore drilling this summer. If they did that, I’d bet that they’d have a successful 2008 election cycle. Going on offense has additional advantages, namely that a good offense is a great to avoid playing defense on this important issue.

Why shouldn’t we insist that the envirowhackos defend their policies? Why shouldn’t we insist that they expain why their idea is the superior idea? It isn’t like they’ve got the better argument. Their idea was defensible in the 1990s when gass was cheap. Bill Clinton was a great spokesman. All he’d do is say the magic words “the environment” and people would accept his irresponsible policies like the stone tablets Moses brought down from the mountaintop.

In truth, Bill Clinton’s putting federal lands offlimits sabotaged our economy. It was predictable.

Now it’s time to kill Lieberman-Warner once and for all. Then it’s time to make the envirowhackos defend their policies in CD after CD. WE’ve got the better end of this issue. Now it’s time to put the envirowhackos’ policies to the electoral test. If we do that, we’ll be fine.

After all, it isn’t like people want another tax increase coupled with higher gas and home heating prices.

Technorati Tags: Cap And Trade, Energy, Bill Clinton, Envirowhackos, Environment, Gas Prices, Tax Increases, Joe Lieberman, John Warner, Harry Reid, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Based on this St. Cloud Times editorial, written by James Mogen, pro-growth capitalism is now part of the far right. Here’s how Mr. Mogen arrives at that conclusion:

Continuing to use her office for campaign activities, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently touted her support from the right-wing radical organization Club for Growth on her congressional Web site. The club is a far right-wing group made up of Wall Street financiers. You may be familiar with the group for its negative ads in 2004.

Instead of denouncing extreme groups like them, Bachmann is proud of its support and is now taking direction from the club. After the club demanded that representatives submit to their “key votes,” Bachmann opposed the recently passed farm bill, which promises to bring major support for area farmers, environmental initiatives and hungry children and families.

CFG is a “right-wing radical organization”? Based on what criteria? Mr. Mogen doesn’t give us the criteria by which he arrived at that conclusion. Instead, this is typical of his ‘logic’:

This group, like Bachmann, is far more conservative than the Minnesotans she is supposed to represent.

In fact, the club has been known to go after moderates who vote their district. The club’s support for Bachmann illustrates her own far-right positions are out of line with those of the 6th District.

Saying that Rep. Bachmann is “far more conservative than the district” she’s supposed to represent doesn’t make sense. If this were true, how did she get elected? Mr. Mogen certainly can’t honestly say that Rep. Bachmann ran as a squishy moderate, either. Anytime I hear someone speaking with this type of certitude, I worry because there isn’t room for differing perspectives. (continue reading post »)

I just wrote about Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s corruption. Now I find that he’s anti-capitalist, too:

The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski’s plan would do the following:

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

Here’s what the Tax Foundation said about Kanjorski’s economic model:

While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski’s ridiculous proposal.

(continue reading post »)

The indispensable Instapundit has posted a link on Fred Thompson’s latest role. The news couldn’t be better for movement conservatives. Fred Thompson lost the battle for the GOP presidential nomination but he’ll win the war for movement conservatives in his new job:

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today…and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.

I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles — smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.

Rest assured that Fredheads across the nation will tune into Fred’s exclusive columns because they’ll want to hear Fred’s articulation of genuine conservative principles. (continue reading post »)

Last week, El Tinklenberg was endorsed by the Blue Dog Democrats, a group often thought to be comprised of moderate Democrats in the House. Mr. Tinklenberg is running against my representative, Michele Bachmann. I’ve often thought that this group was similar to the DLC in that they’re still liberal, just not as crazy as loons like Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich.

According to the Club For Growth’s Congressional Scorecard, that’s sometimes the case but it isn’t always the case. First let’s look at what’s posted on Tinklenberg’s blog about the Blue Dogs’ endorsement:

The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

With a description like that, you’d think that they represented the pro growth ‘wing’ of the party. Let’s compare that with CFG’s ratings.

Nick Lampson, TX-22, is the highest rated Blue Dog. He’s rated 194th with a 29% rating. FYI- TX-22 is Tom DeLay’s old district. Jim Cooper, Jim Matheson and Gene Taylor follow closely behind with 28%, 28% and 27% respectively. (continue reading post »)