US Senate “Green”print for Productivity “Cap”, Coleman On Board
Posted by Andy on October 19th, 2007
So the US Senate is trying to figure out how they too can be on the list for a nobel prize, they want to destroy our economy, and restrict our freedoms as citizens.
WASHINGTON — A Senate blueprint for tackling global warming would require power plants and vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gases by 70 percent. A chief sponsor said President Bush’s approach of voluntary action will not meet the goal.
Did you catch that? “Voluntary” action isn’t good enough. Here comes the steel heel of oppression.
From what the special interests who are pushing as far as action, it is a damn fine thing they haven’t taken away our 2nd Amendment rights. Yes, that is not so you can protect yourself while walking down alleys. It is to protect yourself should your Government try to take away your freedoms and rights.
That is the aim of the Al Gore global lunacy crowd. They are using fearmongering to destroy our capitalistic society, and worse, create their social conformity eutopia. Think Soviet Russia, only worse.
Do you realize there is virtually no way to reduce powerplant emmissions by 70% except by reducing output? That means your own personal usage will also be cut.
But not one has the strong bipartisan support. In addition to Warner, Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine are co-sponsors, as is Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
“It is imperative that our nation acts now to address the concerns over growing greenhouse gas emissions, while carefully addressing the effects it could have on working families and our economy,” Coleman said.
Of course Coleman is a sponsor.
Hey, look, more demoralized conservatives. It is an election year Norm, you need us to defend you and work for you, not constantly work to keep you aligned with us.
Just imagine if all those calls and emails were on your behalf, rather than directed at you.
Oh and so you blind loyalists in the GOP, just to give you an idea of how bad this legislation is, Sen. Klobuchar is piling on too.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is the author — along with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine — of a so-called “carbon counter” provision in the Lieberman-Warner bill that would establish a national greenhouse gas reporting registry.
This is not the kind of working across the isle people on the right have in mind. Why is it that Democrats never cross over to our side? Nope it is always people like Coleman working on liberal issues. Frankly, it is nothing to brag about.
Government-imposed limits would cover about three-fourths of all releases of greenhouse gases. Warner and Lieberman say other parts of the legislation could lead to further emissions cuts from sources such as private homes, which are not covered in the restrictions. Examples include new energy efficiency requirements and possibly more stringent actions that state could have permission to take.
Your private home!
The measure attracted broad support among environmentalists, although some said it did not go far enough and would not achieve reduction levels needed to stabilize greenhouses gases in the atmosphere to avoid the serious climate impact.
Lieberman and Warner said the reductions — if other countries act as well — would be enough to stabilize the gases at safe levels.
But emerging economic powerhouse nations won’t act, and this pandering to the environutters will put America on the fast track to economic irrelevancy in the world market. (Gee, you don’t think that is their goal?)
Lashoff said the bill does not cover all sources of greenhouse gases. But he said it would provide incentives for states to adopt additional measures such as new building codes and energy efficiency investments that would lead to further emission reductions.
Steve Cochran, climate campaign director at Environmental Defense, said the diverse group of senators supporting the measure “reflects growing momentum” for mandatory action on climate change. “The momentum has never been greater,” said Cochran.
“Mandatory”
Some lawmakers, however, are concerned about the economic impact, such as higher gasoline prices and rising energy costs from the cost of capturing carbon from power plants.
“This is going to be a long, contentious piece of legislation,” Warner said.
In other words, how much this will cost every American doesn’t matter to the Senators supporting the environmental lunacy. Nope, your freedoms, rights, and personal choice can no longer be trusted. The US Government is stepping in to and going to decide just how we can live our lives.
Anyone who supports this and votes for this legislation in Congress had better be prepared for the repercussions. The email threads and discussion at the grassroots levels in the GOP and conservative movement are racking up all the different ways Republicans like Coleman are repeatedly letting us down.
I believe there is a pretty large group of conservatives who won’t support Coleman anymore no matter what, and a growing number of people seriously wondering why in the world they should bust their butts to get him elected. We feel on most of the critical issues on our conservative agenda, that Coleman is no better than the Democrat. He’s pissed off too many of us, and continues to rhetorically spit in our face with his liberal positions on core principles.
This legislation is opening the door that leads to a Government our founders and forefathers revolted from. Intrusive and oppressive. Dictating our habits and choices. Forcing us to pay for programs and initiatives we disagree with and that are in direct conflict with our liberties.
I know that the day my Government tries to tell me exactly how I have to live my life, is the day that I know America has failed.
The US Senate might as well just go down to the National Archives and shred the Constitution.
Sphere: Related Content
October 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I believe there is a pretty large group of conservatives who won’t support Coleman anymore no matter what, and a growing number of people seriously wondering why in the world they should bust their butts to get him elected.
I know. We may as well concede the seat to Franken already. I mean, we pretty much have proved that he’ll represent conservatives better then Senator Coleman ever will.
I for one enjoy the new non-butt busting approach to politics. Why fight for a majority when you can just sit back and enjoy a veto-proof minority?
Brent
October 20th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I’m thinking more of a long, sustained small effort, rather than a suicidal last-minute drive to avoid the unspeakable horror of a Franken win and a Hillary presidency. If we each took it on ourselves to chastise Norm once a day, he might eventually see the light.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I only wish we didn’t have to work so hard keeping (R)s in line. It would be nice if they weren’t caught in the crossfire against Liberals so much.
I know a lot of people think (R) is all that matters, but results matter a lot too. To me, defending this nation, reducing the oppression of the people by the government, and ensuring liberty and freedom are my main issues. If there is an (R) who does not stand for those issues, well, I see them as no different than a liberal, and really not worth my time.
Sorry to break it to you Brent, but not all (R)s are worth a conservative’s time. I am not saying that Coleman is there yet. But if we need to all call him every day to make sure he doesn’t go liberal on something, well, we won’t have time to get him elected.
But the larger point is this. There are a lot of people who are one or two issue voters, and Coleman has a record of opposing their issues and they won’t work for him. That is the reality.
They are called core principles for a reason. With out them, you are just an empty shell.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
There are a lot of people who are one or two issue voters, and Coleman has a record of opposing their issues and they won’t work for him. That is the reality.
But that’s really my underlying point. Franken, Ciresi, or any other DFL candidate who makes it on the ballot will have no better record then Senator Coleman on supporting any issues any conservative cares about.
Letting Franken or Ciresi win because you don’t agree with Senator Coleman on key issues earn you nothing. If fact, the reverse is true. If you work to re-elect Coleman you have a chance of having a Republican Majority. Coleman may not support your pet issues, but how about McConnell? Would you rather have McConnell or Reid as Majority Leader? How about Committee Chairs? Boxer or Inhofe? Levin or McCain? Byrd or Cochran? Leahy or Spector?
Republicans in any number of states last year could have stood with their incumbent and flipped those chairs around by reelecting one more Republican Senator, even if their pet issues were being ignored. Did conservatives get a lot of attention to their issues this year???????
It would be a shame if we gave Senator Reid and company another 2 years to control the direction of the Senate just because we felt slighted because our Senator didn’t stroke our pet issues enough for us.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
And there is the horns of the dilemma we are on. There are only two horns. Would you rather sit on the short horn where your Senator only votes with you 75% of the time, or the long horn where your Senator votes with you less than 5% of the time? Those are the choices, and if you cannot get enthused about that much difference, then be resigned to having a Senator who may never accept your “input,” or may insult you in their reply if they reply at all.
Look, all of us would dearly love to be able to work for, donate to, and be “for” a candidate, and not just “against” the opponent. But that may not be one of your choices, and it really is only a matter of mindset, isn’t it? Why doesn’t an abject fear and loathing of an Al Franken candidacy make you absolutely determined to work FOR Franken’s opponent?
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I think you are both missing Andy’s point. Sure, if you solely look at the end result, it makes more sense to work to get Coleman elected, even if he is a worthless POS (which he is).
However, now let’s rejoin the real world and take things like practicality into account. Most activists, when faced with finite amounts of time/money have to make choices. And right now Coleman is pissing off so many people on so many key issues that most activists are just gonna tell him where to stick it and spend the time/money on something else.
When one looks at the long-term big picture forest, sure it doesn’t make as much sense. But tell that to the activists walking amongst the trees.
It is said that every time a bell rings an angels gets it’s wings. Well every time Coleman opens his mouth or casts a vote, he convinces another conservative activist to stay at home on the couch.
Don’t blame Andy for that, killing the messenger and all that.
If next year you want to know why you don’t have enough volunteers to help out, talk to RINOs like Coleman.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
If they would take their time and money to a better candidate, for whatever office, I would be far less concerned. What appears to be happening, though, is that they’re letting one less-than-perfect candidate quell their ardor for ALL Republicans, in all races. They’re just sitting it out and that spells disaster all around. Now I’m all for sticking various foreign objects into various RINO orifices in hopes of focussing their attention but, short of that, I don’t know what else to do. Somehow, living with a Hillary/Franken/Pelosi Reid for 4 years is NOT an option.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Is it too early for me to say I told you so?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 am
The top of the ticket always determines the turnout for the bottom of the ticket. In Minnesota, that’s the Senate race. Sure the Presidential election will be happening as well, but at the local level activists sure as hell aren’t going to be fired up for anything with Coleman voting like a Democrat left and left.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Most activists, when faced with finite amounts of time/money have to make choices.
That’s fine, make choices then. But the options in this thread seem limited to support Coleman or sit on the couch.
We all have limited time and have to make choices, I’ll grant that. However, if conservatives sit on the couch and let moderates make all the decisions on who to support, we’ll end up with more Colemans, not less!
I for one will probably be able to volunteer for only one candidate next year. I can’t help everyone, so I’ll pick one candidate that I really believe in and I think can make a difference. That means that hundreds of worthy candidates won’t get my support. There is nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is if a conservative who might support Kline or Bachmann decides that it is more effective to sit on the couch and support neither because they don’t like Senator Coleman. That doesn’t acheive anything at all of value for them.
Sure, I understand that every conservative might not care that Senator Reid is running the Senator, or that their state represenative is a DFL’er. But there are a lot of campaigns next year, and there has to be at least one campaign that any particular person can support.
Or they can sit on the couch and let candidates they agree with be beaten by more moderates and liberals. I don’t care, it’s their loss.
Brent
October 24th, 2007 at 9:18 am
The problem is that it isn’t just the darn fool sitting on his couch that loses. If the lib gets elected, we ALL lose. Those who think that the Democrats can’t screw things up that badly in just two years don’t know how truly gifted Democrats are at screwing things up, nor do they realize that we’ve already HAD two years for them to screw up in and we cannot afford two more.
I don’t care whether you put all your time, money and effort into one good candidate or spread it across the whole field, just do SOMETHING or the disaster to come will be all your fault. Personally, I find it easier to work for the whole ticket, if the campaigns are coordinated, as they should be. You can also serve just be “getting out the conservative message,” and letting the candidates benefit as they can.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
If it weren’t for Jimmy Carter muffing things up so badly, there wouldn’t have been grounds for a Reagan.
So what some seem to be telling me is so long as it isn’t bad, it won’t getworse, well sorry, it is bad.
Republicans are the door to door salesman on liberal issues, why? because they feel they need to be to stay in power. (Read: so long as they are electable or “can win”
And that’s the problem. For far too many nowadays, what their paid strategists and advisors tell them is that it is their conservative principles are what are the problem. I am one of many scores that believe that they are wrong. The more moderate (read: liberal) the Republican incumbents get, the worse it gets.
it may not be Democrats that gives what we need to get this Country ready for another Reagan revolution. Nope this time it may be Republicans. Not all of them, but far too many.
So, yeah. I’ll do something as a Republican activist. It will likely be local, and if someone doesn’t step up soon, I may run for the state house myself.
the only person that can represent you 100% of the time is yourself.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:01 am
And I bet you would have a tough time managing even that!
On a more serious note, Coleman just lost another point on the support meter, as near as I can read such small numbers, by voting FOR shamnesty AGAIN. So here’s the $64 question: Wasn’t Joe Repya going to challenge Norm, once upon a time? I confess to having been against it when it was suggested, but I’ve had to reconsider. How about Joe?
October 25th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
So here’s the $64 question: Wasn’t Joe Repya going to challenge Norm, once upon a time? I confess to having been against it when it was suggested, but I’ve had to reconsider. How about Joe?
Again, back to the couch issue. Even if Joe does run, if his supporters sit on the couch hoping that someone else does the work of getting him on the general election ballot, his campaign will be short-lived. Regardless their excuse, they need to overcome the number of supporters that Coleman will have go to the caucus and on as delegates up to the state convention.
If you (Kevin) are going to complain that it is hard to get conservatives fired up with Senator Coleman’s voting record, well, then it is going to be hard to get a stronger conservative endorsed against him. It requires action to create change, and if you say that there needs to be change to create action, well, it’s a self-deprecating cycle.
Not that it bothers me much. As I said earlier, it’s their loss if they chose to sit on the couch. That just means that there is less competition for the delegate slots, so that I can continue to vote to endorse Coleman and the other candidates of *my* choice. It’s not that I don’t want a competitive race for available delegate slots, but if I don’t have to bother competing, that just makes it easier. I’m not a sore loser either, and I’m not afraid of competition. I just don’t see conservatives fighting very hard for control of the MNGOP.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Moderate Republicans across the country have very HIGH poll numbers right now. With conservatives on the couch, I’m sure that more Republicans will be interested in capitalizing on those poll numbers going into next year.
Brent
October 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
B.,
There are two problems with your formulation: 1) having a true conservative up for endorsement and/or on the ballot will get people off the couch that a moderate Republican won’t, and 2) we have some major problems in this country for which “moderates” have either no answer or the wrong answer. I really don’t care who gets elected, really. I do care about this country and where it’s headed if we don’t ALL get off the couch and elect somebody who will work for common sense (and that means conservative) solutions.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
having a true conservative up for endorsement and/or on the ballot will get people off the couch that a moderate Republican won’t,
I understand that politics loves heros. When there is a Reagan or a Ventura, or any other hero, people will flock to them. That’s going to happen. But there is a lot of time in politics when there are no heros around.
I guess the temptation is show up when there is a hero, to ride them out, and then sit on the couch until the next hero sweeps you off the couch again. It’s not enough, you go from the high of having a hero, then years of being in the wilderness waiting for the next hero to lead you out.
It’s hard to accept the premise that true conservatives “can’t lose.” Joe Repya couldn’t beat Ron Carey for the state chair seat. Some conservative he is.
Consider Senator Spector. Not a conservative or probably even a moderate by any stretch of the imaginage. Couldn’t even be defeated in a primary be a challenge by Pat Toomey, presumably a true conservative. Rick Santorum, the conservative Senator from PA, couldn’t even win reelection in the general election.
This is not unusual results. If you look at all the incumbent Republican Senators not to win reelect in 2006, I believe that every single one of the them was *more* conservative then the Republican partner they served alongside of and undoubtedly will be found to more conservative then the Senator elected to serve in their seat. Even Chafee wasn’t able to be defeated in a primary battle even though Laffey was supposed to be a “true” conservative.
If getting a “true conservative” elected is a sure fire thing, I’m not seeing it. Or buying it. I suspect that next fall there will be a number of great moderates winning elections. Maybe it’s because conservatives are sitting on the couch, maybe not.
Brent