Gamecock sees no inherent contradiction between Rush/Reagan conservatism and most of the themes and policy proposals presented in David Frum’s Comeback nor Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s Grand New Party, despite the hype of some columnists and the author’s themselves.
Both books, but especially Frum’s, claim to be departures from Reaganism, which they see as fashioned solely for the problems of 1970’s and ‘80’s. I disagree, and think that their bold characterizations of their proposals are mostly self aggrandizing contrarianism.
That said, except for Frum’s internal contradictions within the book concerning President Bush and the above, I found most of their economic proposals to be welcome additions to the debate fiscal conservatives should have been having over the past decade.
The most important and pleasing discoveries in either book were that Douthat rejects the premise of the liberal gospel in Thomas Franks’ What’s the Matter with Kansas? and agrees with one of my long time arguments that the GOP must be the champion of middle and lower income families.
Douthat understands that it is not in America’s interest, no matter their economic station in life, to vote for Democrats who advocate proven failed economic policies. Franks’ book operates from the liberal premise that, obviously, Democrats are for the poor and middle class but that these voters have been tricked into voting for Republicans over irrelevant social issues.
Douthat rejects the premise and also points out the economic effects of a failure to adhere to conservative values.
I reject Frum’s argument that the GOP needs to move to the left on abortion, fetal stem cell research and marriage. Rush babies, the Reagan generation and even the new globalist liberals are majority pro-life, recent polls show. Science is on the side of opposition to government funded ESCR, and 38 states have voted to outlaw same sex marriages.
Both books make some arguments that Reaganism is obsolete due to the death of the USSR and that tax rate cuts can only go so far. I could not disagree more.
Reaganism is about timeless principles of Liberty, limited government, and practical application of values to human nature that the Founders based our society upon.
Yes, the USSR is gone, but Russia isn’t. China is making a challenge and radical Islam seeks our destruction. Evil exists, always will and the USA will always be its target unless we are vanquished. Peace thru strength sound familiar?
The major issue of our day, energy, cries out for Reagan-like de-regulation.
With respect to health-care, McCain’s proposals are market based. I remember Reagan and Rush being for market based free enterprise.
Yes, we need to make a comeback, but we aren’t that far back compared to the 1980’s. We are a young movement compared to the Democrats. And, yes, we need some of the new in the Grand Old Party, but not too much. Conservatism is our game.
Taxes? The democrats want to raise taxes, so it’s not so much that we seek tax cuts as a panacea for all that ails America, but surely Reagan would oppose tax hikes, and so must we.
The GOP must try and educate the younger voters that don’t remember the disastrous liberal economic policies of the 1970’s and the Reagan supply-side policies that gave us 25 years of the greatest boom in history. We must use the energy issue to highlight our virtue.
I highly recommend both books to conservatives to aid in fashioning policies on health care, social security, regulation of industry and our lives (even up to banning Edison’s light bulb) and that as we fashion new policies we be guided by the principles of Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.
There are no contradictions.
______________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - The Chief Justice
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Dole, Burr and GOP should be Nehemiah for lower income families
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
Mel Watt (D-NC) joined most of his fellow Democrats (and not too few Republicans) last month is passing a law arbitrarily bailing out over 300,000 sub-prime loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while, inexplicably ending a successful conservative program allowing charitable organizations to provide down payment assistance to lower income first time homebuyers for regular FHA loans.
FHA loans are not sub prime loans to credit risky borrowers like a high percentage of the bailed out loans. Moreover, 501c3 organizations like Nehemiah provide an extra level of scrutiny for loans they provide DPA assistance for and coach and assist the first time home borrowers from loan application thru sale and throughout the life of the loan.
The “moral hazard” of the risky loans does not apply to FHA loans, so it remains a puzzle why Congress ended the DPA programs. This is especially so given the credit crunch and housing depression amidst record overall and minority homeownership. If the housing slump is too end, homes must be sold to first time homebuyers, who are, disproportionately minority single women with children. The biggest customers of Nehemiah and other such charitable orgs providing DPA is just that demographic and there default rate is in line with overall FHA loans.
Gamecock has recently cited the war the Democratic Party has been waging against lower income families in their preference for high gas prices and fetishes for snail darters and the Gore Church of Manmade Global Warming hoax while their constituents, post gas station visits, choose between the store brand peas and Lesuer. Especially those of Mel Watt that live a life dependant on reasonably priced gas off I-85.
Mel voted to bring the walls down on potential homebuyers in his district, the State of North Carolina and all across the United States before they were ever built.
Tar Heel State senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr didn’t even bother to vote on the bank bailout bill that President Bush reluctantly signed. The President could have used some assistance from our senators of a state so dependant on housing for its standard of living.
Gamecock has also long argued that conservative GOP policies are, and have been since the 1980s, better for all Americans, and especially lower income families and that Republicans need to make this point clear.
Well, Madam Dole and Mister Burr, here is your chance. We hope that Senator Dole will be more responsive to this public request than she has been to one of the more prominent realtors in Charlotte who has been unable to get an audience with the senator on the merits of DPA.
A recent story on the Charlotte Observer rated Dole one of the most “ineffective” senators in Washington. Personally, this rooster usually prefers ineffective porkbarrelists and, in any event cares not for vague rankings for headlines. After all, the 50th best state in the United States is still not in poor Mexico! And the worst vanilla ice cream is still ice cream! But I digress…
Senator Dole has shown that she can get her mind right. She was, not long ago, an acolyte of Gore’s church until she heard painful cries caused by $4/gallon gas.
Hear this cry madam: North Carolina is heavily dependant on housing growth for its well being. The DPA program was not part of the problem of the housing bubble.
Please vote to restore the DPA program and rebuild the walls.
We need Nehemiahs, not another Jericho. The GOP needs to be seen, rightly, as the party of the middle class. So be it, and don’t be quiet about it, unless you want us writing minority reports forever. This country and state is center-right and our policies are right. Let’s take back the majority for the majority.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - The Chief Justice
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew
…And I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but we should all be very concerned about this alarming lack of understanding and the impact on our nation’s businesses.
AP released this article today: Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes
Apparently the use of S-corps has resulted in a large portion of the tax base to be transferred to personal taxes and away from corporate taxes. Do these people really think that business owners will choose to pay the higher of 2 taxes? The article goes on to discuss that senators Levin and Dorgan are unhappy that companies are using “transfers” to conduct internal sales within the companies and subsidiaries. This is a normal practice - do they want the parent and child companies to be in competition with each other? Absurd.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.
That was not the real scary part - read on:
“It’s time for the big corporations to pay their fair share,” Dorgan said.
That last line sent chills down my spine. This is from the same man to who said that the highest wage earners are not paying enough, and then failed to say that there was an “enough” when talking about these incomes. He suggested that 75% might not be enough tax. This warped sense of fairness, policy-wise, is going to kill our potential for economic recovery.
This is just one more reason to quit bickering over the dang VP slot, and get busy supporting the Republican candidate. If Obama wins, then these idiots will have free reign.
It appears that Harkin is cruising to a fifth-term:
Rasmussen Iowa Senate General Election
- Tom Harkin 58% (52%)
- Christopher Reed 34% (36%)
With Leaners:
- Tom Harkin 60%
- Christopher Reed 36%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on August 7, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Sen. Smith is back on top:
Rasmussen Oregon Senate General Election
- Gordon Smith 47% (43%)
- Jeff Merkley 39% (41%)
With Leaners:
- Gordon Smith 50%
- Jeff Merkley 44%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on August 7, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Bridge To Nowhere) has been indicted. A lot.
In a way this is good news for Republicans, as he will likely have to set aside his re-election effort, if not outright resign. The question is, who replaces him? The filing deadline was June 2, 2008, and this guy is the current alternative.
UPDATE: Note that Stevens runs a PAC that has given to virtually all the vulnerable Senators up for re-election this cycle. What a headache.
Remember this next time someone comments on what a hopelessly partisan outfit DOJ has become under Bush.
UPDATE 2: Does it sound to you like this guy is resigning? Because it sure doesn’t to me.
University of New Hampshire 2008 Senate Poll, conducted July 11th-20th, 2008
- Jeanne Shaheen 46%
- John Sununu 42%
- Undecided 10%
Five hundred (519) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed by telephone between July 11 and July 20, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/-4.3 percent.
To bring you the following news. Congress now has a 9% approval rating.
Okay, back to it.
(Note, I’m not sure whether there’s a debate going on about Romney, but its usually a safe bet).
Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire is the incumbent senator considered most likely to lose in this fall election. He has trailed former Governor Jeanne Shaheen consistently in the polls this year. I’ll leave it to others to debate whether he can make a comeback and survive his challenge or whether he will be the Rick Santorum or Mike DeWine of 2008.
In case he is not around the U.S. Senate next year, here is an article to remember him by:
Where is there a philosopher in Washington?
Actually, I was pretty sure I knew where, and never mind that like any intelligent person he didn’t major in philosophy. Senator John Sununu (Republican of New Hampshire) earned a BS and an MA in mechanical engineering from MIT, an MBA from Harvard, and a living as a design engineer and manufacturing consultant. His reputation is .??.??. well, as one of his fellow senators said to me, “Don’t let anything happen to this boy in the New Hampshire election, otherwise we’ll have to argue about who’s the smartest person in the Senate.” I was willing to bet that Senator Sununu knows that if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, the government will tax the timber industry and subsidize the purchase of Miracle Ears.
I went to see Senator Sununu at his office in the Russell Building and said that I assumed he had a political philosophy. “I like to think so,” he replied. “But it’s not something I have written down on an index card.”
As a gut reaction conservative myself, I take the senator’s point. In fact, however, Senator Sununu could write his political philosophy on a small piece of paper: “I have a deep-seated belief that America is unique, strong, great because of a commitment to personal freedom–in our economic system and our politics. We are a free people who consented to be governed. Not vice-versa.” (Italics added for the sake of the multitudes in our government’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches who need to fill out that index card and keep it with them at all times. And if the multitudes are confused by “Not vice-versa” they may substitute, We aren’t a government that consents to people being free.)
“It’s important for politicians to understand,” Senator Sununu said, “that the Founders’ writings reflect that point of view. From Jefferson to Hamilton, freedom was the special ingredient in human prospects, moral prospects, political prospects. The argument was over what government mechanism would ensure common good and guarantee freedom. There was no argument about whether we were free people. In most parts of the world there never has been an appreciation for that perspective. Governments have evolved to provide greater freedom, to reduce the power of monarchies, to reduce absolute power.”
When, indeed, governments have evolved at all. Darwin, if he’d studied Russia instead of Galapagos finches, would have come up with the theory of “survival of the filthiest.” Senator Sununu wants a government mechanism without the innumerable moving parts that collect goo and sludge: “Just because something is a good idea doesn’t mean it should be a law–let alone a federal law. That’s where I begin,” he said, “with a firm belief that people in the United States are best served by limited and effective government.”
Read the whole thing.
Lots of polling has been released concerning other important races. Reid Wilson over at RCP’s Politics Nation Blog has the rundowns including:
By sure to click the links to read Wilson’s crosstabs analysis.
Shaheen expands her lead:
Rasmussen New Hampshire Senate Poll, conducted June 18th, 2008
- Jeanne Shaheen 53%
- John Sununu 39%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 18, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
The race tightens in Colorado:
Rasmussen Colorado General Election Poll, conducted June 17th, 2008
- Barack Obama 43%
- John McCain 41%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 17, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Rasmussen shows McCain improving his standing in Colorado even as Democrat Mark Udall continues to build his lead over Republican Bob Schaffer.
This poll was conducted on behalf of the Democratic Senate Committee (Begich was ahead of Stevens), so take that for what it’s worth.
Global Strategy Group Alaska General Election
- John McCain 44%
- Barack Obama 42%
In my personal life I get to interact with many different people each week. Most of these folks are either blue collar or middle class. These folks are the sort we need to win.
I’ve noticed some troubling patterns. Many of the people who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 have tuned out politics entirely. They’re not simply considering staying out this election. They’ve given up on politics and aren’t paying attention to it anymore.
This means barring some seismic event (terrorist attack, new war) these voters won’t even be paying attention to McCain as he tries to win them over on TV or radio. Do my anecdotal experiences reflect a wider phenomenon?
Those polls that show plummeting Republican ID suggest we may see voters dropping out. This shouldn’t be surprising since Bush’s 2004 campaign brought out 6.2 million voters who hadn’t voted before. Many of these casual voters appear to have dropped out of politics again.
It’s doubtful many of the 7.1 million new Democratic voters from 2004 have dropped out of politics. We know Democrats brought in somewhere around 2.1 million new voters in 2006. We don’t know exactly how many new Democrats have been brought in during the primaries. In states where voters register by party the trends have been frightening.
This may explain some of the shift in the voter ID. Maybe we’ve just had Republican drop out of the active electorate while Democrats continue to rush in.
On the other side I’ve noticed younger Bush voters (under 35) have turned vociferously against Republicans. Dismal seem to validate the point. According to Pew Poll released June 3rd:
Voters still hate Republicans. On almost any issue voters favor the Democrats.
That doesn’t mean voters favor the liberal position. Even where a majority of voters favor a conservative position, they tend to say they trust Democrats more than Republicans on the issue.
I suspect most of this shift has been among the voters aged 35 or younger.
While McCain does much better than a generic Republican I’m getting the impression he faces three daunting tasks:
Any one of these tasks would be hard. To win, McCain must do all three and have a little luck on top of it. That’s why despite the close national polls, McCain is still an underdog.
Sen. Collins only leading by 7? Her lead has been cut in half in two months. Not good.
Rasmussen Maine Senate General Election
- Susan Collins 49% (52%) (54%)
- Tom Allen 42% (42%) (38%)
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 16, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Norm!
SurveyUSA Minnesota Senate Poll, conducted June 10th-12th, 2008
without Jesse Ventura
- Norm Coleman 52%
- Al Franken 40%
with Jesse Ventura
- Norm Coleman 41%
- Al Franken 31%
- Jesse Ventura 23%
700 state of Minnesota adults were interviewed 06/10/08 through 06/12/08. Of them, 609 were registered to vote.
Rasmussen Kansas General Election
- John McCain 47% (55%)
- Barack Obama 37% (34%)
Rasmussen Kansas Senate General Election
- Pat Roberts 48% (52%)
- Jim Slattery 39% (40%)
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 11, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Obama maintains his wide lead in the land of 10,000 lakes:
Rasmussen Reports Minnesota General Election
- Obama - 52% (53)
- McCain - 39% (38)
Favorable/Unfavorable
- Obama - 60/39
- McCain - 54/45
Obama captures the vote of 86% of Democrats; McCain gets 88% of Republicans; Unaffiliated voters broke 50-32 in favor of Barack.
There was never a time at any point in the 2004 election, going all the way back to March of ‘04 when polling for MN began, that Kerry led by more than nine points (and even that was a single outlier poll). For most of 2004, Kerry led in MN polls by 1-3 points.
Rasmussen Reports MN Senate Race
- Coleman - 48%
- Franken - 45%
- Coleman - 39%
- Franken - 32%
- Ventura - 24%
Dittman Research Alaska Senate General Election
- Mark Begich 51% (D)
- Ted Stevens 44% (R)
The Dittman Research statewide survey included a sample of 421 respondents and has a margin of error of roughly 5 percent.
I have the pleasure of venturing into enemy territory today as I attended the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) convention in Rochester, Minnesota with my friend Washington Times columnist Barry Casselman.
Franken made the above claim in his acceptance speech upon defeating St. Thomas college professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for the party’s Senate endorsement.
So here’s my question… Can a case be made that there is a new Progressive majority in America should Barack Obama, the most liberal Democratic nominee in perhaps more than 100 years, win in November? It would seem to me that it could should Barack Obama capture the White House with a coalition of McGovernites, twenty-somethings, and African-Americans.
By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
________________________________________________________________________________
The same Democratic Party that is about to nominate a radical Marxist preaching “hope and change” as its presidential nominee, attained its hoped for change in Congress by running candidates advocating conservatism in 2006.
But given the post-Clinton McGovernite take over of the world’s oldest political party, conservative Democrats wield little power especially given the GOP’s paranoid drift to the left.
America remains a center-right country whose majority is nearly as under-represented in Congress as it is in a culture dominated by elitists in academia and the media.
But don’t lose hope my fellow beleaguered Reaganites. We even have some champions in Congress, as evidenced by Sens. McConnell (R-KY) and Sessions (R-AL) smack down of the Lieberman (ID-CN)- Warner (R-VA)-[Dole (R-NC)?] De-CAP-itate the American economy and TRADE away our liberty Bill this week, lest the American people get to watch Democrats vote down common sense majority positions on C-Span II.
Meanwhile, Gamecock’s congressman urges oil drilling off N.C. coast:
Drivers upset with high gas prices could find relief off the N.C. coast, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick said Thursday.
Using a gas station as a backdrop, the Charlotte Republican renewed calls for oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic Coast. Drilling is now prohibited under a longstanding moratorium.
“I’m as frustrated as the next person when it comes to filling up my car,” she said, overlooking pumps selling regular for $3.99. “One of the things we need to do is use more of our own resources.”
Myrick has introduced the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008. It would give states authority to permit drilling within 100 miles of their coast, while allowing the federal government to lease sites beyond 100 miles. The moratorium is in effect until 2012.
A bill similar to Myrick’s passed the then-Republican controlled House largely along party lines in 2006. It did not make it through the Senate. She said she thinks this time will be different.
“People are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline,” she said. “They weren’t in 2006.”
Myrick aides pointed to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday that shows 57 percent of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas currently off limits. Myrick said she’s driven in part by the fact that Cuba has leased drilling rights to China and Spain in waters 50 miles off Florida.
“That’s our oil!” Myrick said in a rising voice. “China already has our jobs. Are we going to give them our oil, too?”
The former mayor of the Queen City lays it out nicely, doesn’t she?
Too bad she isn’t in the Senate seat now held by the wife of a former senator from a state with no coastline who gets her “maverick” mug plastered on page A1 as a missionary for Al Gore’s Church of man-made global warming while a clear headed Myrick makes page B6.
Bob, we gave you a standing ovation for your curt e-mail smackdown of Scott turncoat Texan McClellan. Could you please re-tar the heels of this close relative of yours?:
Dole is climate bill’s unlikely ally
Global warming threatens U.S. security, senator says.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to cast a historic vote today on the first comprehensive global warming bill to make its way out of a committee room.
The sweeping legislation is expected to die.
But among those supporting the measure will be Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the Salisbury Republican whose voting record is among the Senate’s most conservative.
“It’s very important that we move on this because the costs of inaction are just too great,” Dole said Thursday. “The data became more and more voluminous.”
Her eureka moment, she said, came more than a year ago, after poring over the science about climate change and concluding that the Earth definitely is getting warmer.
Two colleagues on the Armed Services Committee – Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican John Warner of Virginia – persuaded her about the effect of climate change on national security.
This convert to the GOP after a 2000 conservative epiphany is sick and tired of voting for Republicans that have “eureka” moments surrounded by liberals in Washington, D.C.
[And you will search the whole article in vain for HOW global warming threatens our national security (not to mention the dearth of evidence that man can control the weather - vanity of vanities).]
The only Eureka moments conservatives need concern themselves with are the four years worth of same Ronald Reagan spent at the Illinois college that taught him the basics of economics that saved America in the 1980s.
Dole is opposed by her fellow Tar Heel republican Senator Richard Burr.
South of here in the more refined Carolina (see Spartanburg and Charleston), Republican conservative stalwart Jim DeMint is with Burr, but we suspect McCain’s Vice-President Lindsey Graham supported the now dead bill as did McCain (too busy campaigning to vote).
Graham was also a senator that spoke to racist La Raza group last year and called opponents of the amnesty bill, racists.
Thank God the Palmetto State’s governor was and is no more intimidated by Graham (nor of the prospect of McCain speaking to “The Race” in July) than Rush Limbaugh and We the People were last summer when we smacked that abominable bill last summer.
SC’s Sanford signs illegal immigration bill
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Gov. Mark Sanford signed legislation Wednesday that threatens to temporarily shut down businesses and fine them up to $1,000 per worker if they employ illegal immigrants.
Sanford, surrounded by about 20 legislators, said the measure reasserts the rule of law in South Carolina - cracking down on the “wink-and-nod” employment of illegal immigrants. He and legislators said they hope the ideas spread and force Congress to act.
“The message is loud and clear: Stop the silent invasion of this state,” said Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston.
Legislators boasted the measure is the most strict and effective anti-illegal-immigrant bill in the country. Lawmakers made the law increasingly tougher as debate progressed, with constituents becoming more frustrated by the federal government’s inaction on the issue.
“It’s certainly one of the toughest, if not the toughest,” said Larry Frankel, state legislative counsel in the American Civil Liberty Union’s Washington office.
Rep. Thad Viers, R-Myrtle Beach, predicted the law will lower the state’s unemployment rate, at 5.9 percent in April, because immigrants will “self-deport” and make more jobs available.
This comes on the heels of a historic conservative legislative session on abortion law, religious free speech, criminal law and free market health insurance reform in South Carolina.
Hope and change the conservative American majority can believe in lies in following the federalist lessons being espoused south of the Old Dominion and north of the Peach State.
Never mistake democratic primary voters for America. Obama won the Carolinas’ primaries. Some liberal always wins democratic contests down here. (see Bill Clinton re Jesse Jackson).
But come November, the actual election occurs. There has been a lot of wild talk that N.C. or even S.C. could be in play this November. I’m not going to dignify the suggestion re the home of the birthplace of Old Hickory, but as to Polk’s state:
Democrats’ percentage of the presidential vote in North Carolina from 1980-2004 has been: 47, 38, 42, 42, 44, 43, and 44, respectively.
I don’t see a 50, do you? I don’t even see a 48.
Obama’s only hope? He smokes.
McCain will smoke him, and if he would follow Myrick and Sanford’s lead, he’ll snuff him out by a landslide.
[UPDATE RE NO MAJOR DRILLING RELATED OIL SPILLS SINCE 1969]
Uncle Sam bans states from drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf mainly to protect the environment. Some 85% of the U.S. coastline is off-limits to energy production — including huge reserves off Florida’s coast, which China is exploiting in Cuban waters.
To change that, a lawmaker is offering a novel idea. Rep. Sue Myrick of the House Energy and Commerce panel wants to let coastal states decide whether drilling is environmentally risky. She has introduced a bill that would give coastal states that want offshore drilling the power to opt out of the Interior Department’s offshore restrictions.
And as a powerful incentive, Myrick, R-N.C., proposes cutting them (and adjacent states) in on the federal revenues from leases. Washington now collects as much as $8 billion a year in existing Gulf royalties, a figure that would balloon as coastal regions opened for exploration.
Her Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act would give states the ability to control energy production up to 100 miles off their shores and would extend their territorial waters.
But the bill faces major hurdles. Even if Myrick can get the House panel’s Democrat chair, Rep. John Dingell, to take it up, it would face stiff opposition in the Senate. Florida Sens. Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson have blocked previous attempts to lift the ban on drilling — although Martinez, a Republican, lately has shown signs of softening.
Foes have successfully cloaked their arguments against offshore drilling in eco-apocalypse, claim it will lead to oil spills. Fearing tar-ball-pocked beaches, the tourism industry has joined the greens in lobbying against such bills.
Their fears are unfounded. And politicians concerned about America’s energy security ought to do a better job educating the public with the facts. For example:
• Less than one one-thousandth of a percent (0.001%) of the 7 billion-plus barrels of oil that Washington has allowed to be produced offshore over the past 25 years has been spilled, according to the Interior Department.
• A whopping 63% of petro pollution in North American seas comes not from offshore rigs, but from natural seepage from the sea floor. Source: National Academy of Sciences.
• There hasn’t been a major oil spill from an offshore well since 1969 even though rigs since then have been lashed by Katrina and other major hurricanes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Those of you who are convinced that Democrats reaching a 60-seat majority is a possibility might be taken aback somewhat by this poll. Landrieu still leads, but it is within the margin of error. The demographic changes in Louisiana post-Katrina are far more important to me than the fact Democrats won one low-turnout special election in one Congressional district. If Bobby Jindal is placed on McCain’s ticket, Landrieu could be in even more trouble.
Rasmussen Reports Louisiana Senate Poll, conducted May 28th, 2008
- Mary Landrieu (D) 47%
- John Kennedy (R) 44%
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports May 28, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Favorability:
Job Approval
POTUS:
Things are a little close for comfort down in the Magnolia State, where Bush won by 20 points four years ago, but the favorability ratings are certainly a good sign:
Rasmussen Reports Mississippi General Election Matchup
- McCain - 50%
- Obama - 44%
Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
- McCain - 55/42
- Obama - 44/54
Scott makes the observation that the racial divide is huge in the breakdown of the crosstabs.
The Senate races:
- Musgrove (D) - 47%
- Wicker (R-inc) - 46%
Wicker was appointed by Governor Barbour to fill out the rest of Trent Lott’s term when Lott retired. Intrade currently rates this race as an exactly 50/50 tossup.
- Cochran (R-inc) - 58%
- Fleming (D) - 35%
No problem for the GOP in Alabama:
Rasmussen Reports Alabama General Election Matchup
- McCain - 60% (55)
- Obama - 32% (37)
Survey was completed May 27 of 500 likely voters and has a 4% MoE. Numbers in parentheses are from the April poll.
Favorable/Unfavorable Numbers
- McCain - 62/34
- Obama - 36/61
And Jeff Sessions is more than cruising to reelection against Vivian Davis Figures:
- Sessions - 62% (57)
- Figures - 29% (36)
Regarding an earlier post suggesting the possibility of Hillary Clinton, as a consolation prize, becoming the Majority Leader of a
filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. If you were to bet on that today, you might get good odds, but I think it is a sucker bet.
For the scenario to occur, two things would have to happen that I just do not see. Democrats would have to control 60 of 100 Senate seats, and Hillary Clinton would have to be elected Majority Leader. I also do not think she will change her name back to Rodham either, as the title implies.
There are currently only 49 United States Senators elected as Democrats as well as 49 elected as Republicans. If you include socialist Bernie Sanders and McCain-supporter (and often-touted VP choice by the person who wrote the post which I am refuting) Joe Lieberman, that puts the Democrats at 51. If you look at the political report put out by Charlie Cook , a non-partisan political handicapper, on May 22, he rates 10 seats as solidly Democrat. Then Tim Johnson’s seat is “likely Dem”. Mary Landrieu’s is “lean Dem”. For the sake of this argument, I will assume Democrats hold all of those.
Senator John Warner’s seat in Virginia is rated as likely Dem also because he is retiring and Mark Warner (no relation) is heavily favored over Jim Gilmore. Gilmore was also a four-year governor of the state and was elected by a bigger margin than Warner, but all polls show Warner ahead. He is expected to win. There are then 6 seats rated as toss ups. I repeat. Toss ups. Not likely Dem, not lean Dem, toss up.
That means in theory Republicans should win 3 and Democrats 3. They include Stevens in Alaska, the open seat in Colorado, Coleman in Minnesota, Wicker in Missippi, Sununu in New Hampshire, and the open seat in New Mexico. Coleman still narrowly leads in Minnesota. Colorado’s polls have always been close, as have Alaska’s. If you give all 6 seats to the Democrats, the equivalent of flipping a coin 6 times and having it show up heads for all 6, that puts the Democrats at 58 seats. Then Sue Collins and Gordon Smith are rated as lean Rep. The open Nebraska seat and Liddy Dole are likely Rep. There are 12 solid Republican seats, but some of them are questionable. A recent Rasmussen poll has Mitch McConnell behind, for example.
Charlie Cook is a non-partisan political analyst. My understanding is that he is personally slightly left of center, and Stuart Rothenberg is personally right of center. For the Democrats to get a filibuster-proof majority, they would have to keep Landrieu, elect Mark Warner, have the coin land on heads 6 times in a row andtake all 6 toss up seats, and win 2 out of 5 seats where they are decidedly underdogs (ME, OR, NE, NC, KY). In addition to that, Joe Lieberman would have to continue to caucus with the Democrats. Even with this perfect storm, they would still only have 58 Senators elected as Democrats, but they would have a caucus of 60 with Lieberman and Sanders.
As I have just shown, the odds of everything breaking perfectly for Democrats and having them get to 60 seats is very slim. The chances of Hillary Clinton then becoming the leader of this caucus, in my opinion, is even slimmer. She clearly does not have very many friends in the Democratic caucus. Pat Leahy called on her to drop out.
John Kerry clearly does not think much of the Clintons. Dick Durbin is second in command under Reid and is a strong Obama partisan. Despite her being in the Senate since 2001 and having four years longer to make friends and build trust than Barack Obama has had, he has 16 Senate endorsements to her 13. Plus even that 13 overstates her support because a few signed up early on when she looked inevitable. What is more, from what I can tell, Harry Reid is fairly well-liked in that caucus.
If you’re thinking of betting on Hillary Clinton becoming the Majority Leader of a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate, spend your money on a Powerball ticket. You’ll have a better chance.
A filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is beginning to look like a reality. Red-staters are apparently ready to join the rest of the nation in vomiting Republicans out this November. And that means even more vulnerable GOP Senate seats on the horizon.
As an avid follower of the biannual race for the Senate, I’ve noticed a few general rules that bode ill for the GOP this time around. First, one of the surest ways to predict months in advance whether an incumbent senator will win or lose an election is to simply determine whether the incumbent is able to garner majority support in most polls. Those who do generally hold their seats. Those who don’t, well, don’t. Secondly, in almost every election cycle, the bulk of contested Senate races generally breaks one way or the other on Election Day. That is to say, if there are six Senate races that could go either way come November, it’s much more likely for five of them to break for the same party than it is for each party to win three.
When these rules are applied to the current Senate landscape, fully 10 current GOP Senate seats are found to be up for grabs, while the same cannot be said for a single Democratic seat. According to the RCP polling archive, of the GOP senators facing reelection this year, seven have either trailed their opponent or fallen below 50% in at least one recent poll. Those endangered incumbents include Liddy Dole of NC, John Sununu of NH, Ted Stevens of AK, Mitch McConnell of KY, John Cornyn of TX, Norm Coleman of MN, and Roger Wicker of MS. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate leads the GOP candidate in three additional open seats according to at least one recent poll: CO, NM, and VA. Were the Democrats to sweep all of these seats, and were Sen. Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats, fully 61 senators would be voting for Majority Leader Hillary Clinton in 2009, her likely consolation prize for her efforts this year.
Now, things could change between now and November, but if 10 GOP Senate seats are still up for grabs after Labor Day, and if Mary Landrieu still seems poised to coast to victory, I would be very surprised if Democrats ended up with fewer than seven additional seats in the Senate. That’s a 58-seat Democratic Senate, probably with a corresponding majority in the House. If those sorts of Democratic supermajorities don’t convince conservatives to vote for John McCain in the fall, I just don’t know what will.