Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted April 8, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
33 Comments
(Wall Street Journal)
The Democrats’ ChoiceDo they want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?
Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Next week the Democrats will mark their 100th day running Congress, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself “enormously proud” of their record.
We think it’s too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish: Do they want to get something done, which will require the signature of a Republican President who still has 21 months in office? Or is their goal to delegitimize the Bush Presidency with a purely partisan goal of regaining the White House in 2008?
If their plan is to govern, Democrats have several opportunities to work with President Bush to achieve goals they claim to share. Trade deals on Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea await a Congressional vote, and their defeat would harm those nations and the U.S. national interest. On immigration reform, Mr. Bush is closer to most Democrats than to many in his own party. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (a k a Mandatory Maximum Tax) needs another patch to avoid hitting 15 million more taxpayers this year.
We have nothing against partisanship, and Democrats have every right to reward their supporters and pursue their policy goals. Some of these are part of the “Six for ‘06″ bills that House Democrats passed easily in their first days, though they still have to run the gantlet of the Senate. But our guess is that Democrats would help themselves more, and have a better chance of gaining seats in 2008, if they show they are open to compromise and can point to priorities that became law.
The alternative is to frame a largely partisan agenda that may pass the House but will either die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. These include the largely political payoff to unions of abolishing secret organizing ballots, or cutting off funds for the Iraq war. These are crowd pleasers on the left, which has overinterpreted last year’s victory as a mandate for their policies rather than a rejection of GOP failure.
But this is a risky strategy that would give the lie to the claim that House Democrats made last year that they could govern better than the Tom DeLay Republicans. Their freshmen from swing districts would have few accomplishments to tout. And neither Mr. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be on the ballot again–a reality that Democrats will sooner or later have to acknowledge, hard as it will be to give up the anger.
If Democrats are smart, they’ll realize that Republicans in Congress don’t fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
I’m quite pleased with the Democratic Congress. I’m not surprised the conservative voice box for the WSJ is upset but they are in the minority. The majority wanted change and were sick of the way Bush was leading the nation towards fascism and economic ruin.
A perfect example was the ample amount of whining when some Democrats and moderate Republicans went to the Middle East. The media couldn’t stop bitching about how some in the Congress wanted peace instead of eternal war and conflict. The American people want peace, they don’t want to send their children to die for corporate profits. The rich don’t send their children to die, they just trade with our enemies as Cheney and Halliburton have done. If this were the 18th century the conservatives would be siding with the British.
Nancy might as well be proud now – because come ‘08 she’ll be in the minority….again.
I like your post Republican. But I don’t think Dems will be obstructionists in the bipartisan process. It’s just not in our nature to be as cutthroat, even if the republicans screwed us over for so many years.
Moderate republicans should have no problem getting along with the dems. And I could honestly care less about what the President wants. I think most dems feel the same way. To pass a bill just for his appeasement is crap.
GS, please, it really almost seems pathetic to say that. I realize it is a long way off till the election, but I have NO worries whatsoever. I’m so proud of my donation to the Hillary campaign.
I have no worries, either.
Perhaps we’re both pretty confident women?
The Democrats will will win in ‘08 if they can nominate someone who is electable. I’m all for the changes I’ve seen so far, but there is a long road ahead due to all damage that’s been done by this administration. Hillary won’t win..the country isn’t ready for that yet..to many bigots and narrow minded people…plus many simpy don’t like her. The majority in this country just want capable leaders who put the interests of our country ahead of their own. If the Dems nominate someone who has a more than a snowball’s chance of winning, they will.
From the Illegal immigrant in state tuition regulation passed by the State of Kansas is IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW!!
Passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton
“Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” There was no misunderstanding about what this law means, either when Congress passed it or when President Clinton signed it in 1996. Conference Report 104-828 stated, “this section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.”"
Republican,
“However,I’m not as naive as you to state that all Global Warming is caused from human effects.
That is what you want everyone to believe and pay tax on it.”
I have NOT stated that “all” GW is human-caused. I believe a small part, perhaps 10%, may be natural.
What % of GW do you believe “is caused from human effects”?
You seem to use your hatred of carbon taxes and the U.N. as proof that humans are not causing GW. That’s backwards — do the science FIRST, then find solutions.
As I’ve posted BEFORE, I don’t believe carbon taxes are the most effective of MANY solutions.
For example, the cost of gasoline is only a small part of car ownership. And high gasoline prices in Europe have NOT triggered the super-cars we have the ability to build.
We should also use ‘feebates’, loan guarantees to U.S. automakers for retooling, scrap-and-replace programs, ‘carrots’, etc.http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Ever been to Europe Cosmos? I have and it’s quite crowded. Gasoline prices there are twice as much as the U.S.
Let’s take the U.K. for instance. They have 61 million people crammed into the area the same size as the state of Oregon.
They should have tighter Environmental controls and try to be more Green, because of the confined space they live.
They are also car crazy in the UK despite having very convenient and effective rail, underground and bus service.
The number of passengers flying abroad from the UK rose by about 65 per cent between 1994 and 2004, and the number flying within the UK rose by about 70 per cent over the same period. More than 70 per cent of passengers flying from UK airports are UK citizens. More carbon emissions there isn’t it.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the UK are projected to rise from 39.6 million tonnes of carbon equivalent in 1990 to 48.2MtC in 2010. This is a rise in transport’s share of UK emissions from 18.7 per cent in 1990 to 26.3 per cent in 2010.
How’s that Carbon Tax working out for them? Carbon emissions are going up.
Total UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 8.1 per cent between 1990 and 2003, less than the 13.4 per cent fall claimed by the Government. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is bound to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 12.5 per cent by 2012. Over the past two years, emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas – have risen.
Again, how is that carbon tax helping with emissions as it has risen.
Why, if GW has all the credibility its proponents claim it does, need they lie? Over and over?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
Let’s face it. Conservatives don’t care what kind of world they leave to their children and grandchildren. Plunder the planet now; when the chickens come home to roost, the current deniers and shills will be dead and gone.
Let’s face it. Liberals will destroy the United States by implementing their Socialistic measures, taking away any inducement for folks to try and work for a living, while throwing us all back to the Dark Ages by removing our tried and true energy sources and replacing them with alternative sources that can’t produce the same amount.
Then they’ll start crying that they can’t afford electricity to heat and cool their homes.
But it will be their own fault.
Republican,
You avoided answering my question.Again, what % of GW do you believe “is caused from human effects”?
It’s odd that both you and JM ask me if I’ve been to Europe. Is that on a “talking points” list? And yes, I have.
UK CO2 emissions rose only about 1 – 1.5% last year, and when they adjust the carbon tax system it’ll work fine.
Are airlines included in the UK’s carbon tax? Heard about Boeing’s hydrogen fuel-cell small plane? Their 7E7?
And you don’t seem to have read my posts, so again:As I’ve posted BEFORE, I don’t believe carbon taxes are the most effective of MANY solutions.
For example, the cost of gasoline is only a small part of car ownership. And high gasoline prices in Europe have NOT triggered the super-cars we have the ability to build.
We should also use ‘feebates’, loan guarantees to U.S. automakers for retooling, scrap-and-replace programs, ‘carrots’, etc.http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
PDF page 106″Boeing says that as composites make 7E7 lighter but more spacious (Fig. 25a), its one-fifth drop in fuel intensity, vs. a comparably sized 767–300, will come 40% from better engines, 30% from better airframe materials, aerodynamics, and systems architecture, and the other 30% from “cycling the design”: more efficient engines and better lift/drag ratio reduces fuel loading, thus optimizing requirements for the wing and landing gear, thus saving even more weight and fuel, and so on.
GSheridan,
“Why, if GW has all the credibility its proponents claim it does, need they lie? Over and over?”
Please EXPLAIN the “lie” re polar bears facing a higher drowning risk as the Arctic ice melts away. I say it’s the anti-AGW group who is LYING.
Should we wait until many more bears drown and/or starve, before taking action?
‘Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?”http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html“NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze said, “The reduction in summer sea ice is a bad omen for animals like the polar bear, which need sea ice for their survival.” ”
‘Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece
‘Drowning polar bears worry researchers’http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2246
‘Scientists Sound Warning on Global Warming’http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585“A survey by the U.S. Mineral Management Service has recorded elevated numbers of polar bears drowning. Some have been found swimming far out in the warming Arctic sea as the sea ice pulls back farther from land and the bears try to swim to shore.”
‘Polar Bears Face Serious ThreatBut scientists say there is time to save them, and the polar ice caps’http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070104134253mlenuhret0.3304254
“You avoided answering my question.Again, what % of GW do you believe “is caused from human effects”?”Posted by: cosmos | April 08, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Come on Cosmos, you must think I’m stupid. Any Scientist or Non-Scientist worthy of listening to will not quantify something like that into a single data set point as a percentage.
There are so many competing data sets out there, Scientists readily admit (on all sides of the GW issue) that there is no homogeneity and therefore understanding of exactly how temperature affects what when why and how is not understood.
You want me to lump in all together temperatures from vertical fingerprint sampling, c02 core samples, land surface, non recorded temp data, recorded temp data, ignore cloud vapor, ignore dust particles and you want me to come up
with an average single point data set number with all of that?
I don’t think so,life isn’t that simple.
All the Global Warming Alarmists like yourself want to make it that simple.
Why don’t you run along now Cosmos and average up all the phone numbers in the World and tell me what the average telephone number is.
Somebody just call me when the world ends, ok!
Republican,
You falsely accused me of believing that “all” GW was human-caused.
I’m merely asking you to give a rough ‘ball-park’ estimate of the human vs natural split. 50-50?
I don’t understand your bizarre “temperatures” and “average telephone number” rants.
Warming is caused by ‘forcings’. For example, an increase:* In solar radiation would be a + “natural” forcing.* In radiation trapped by human’s GHG’s would be a + “human-caused” forcing.
You HAVE studied what’s causing the warming of Earth, haven’t you?
So what’s your rough estimate of human vs natural?
I say Humans 3%, Precession of the Earth 17%, Sun and Solar flares 80%.
I believe the Sun is the largest factor in warming the earth. I might be in the minority in this though, because I’m not for sure if there is concensus among scientist if the Sun is truly causing the Earth to warm.
Joe! Where did you get YOUR science degrees? Scientists the world over disagree strongly with you.
Wow! I just made Ben look like a fool!
Read my statement again!
How is that Joe!?
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
Without the Sun! The Earth wouldn’t be warm.
Duh!
Anyways! I was just making a guess, because Cosmo asked the question.
I did a quick search on it, just to see what the consensus was. One source said 5.53%
I guess I wasn’t far off.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
But of course! Ben believes that Scientist the world over disagree with me that the Sun warms the earth.
Joe Williams,
“Without the Sun! The Earth wouldn’t be warm.”
Without the greenhouse gases, Earth would be about 86 degs F COLDER. Kinda nippy, huh?
They say that there is no temperature at all in deep space away from any stars.Hard to fathom what it would be like, but the sun warming up the earth is as different as night to day.
Joe Williams,
The data at your ‘mysite.verizon’ page is WRONG. Correct #’s are below.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%.
CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”
Joe! The clear implication is that we are discussing the CHANGES in warming. OBVIOUSLY the source of the energy is primarily solar. I never said otherwise.
Your last statement is simple bullshit.
Happy Easter to my Christian brothers and sisters. Best wishes to all those who are not.
May God’s love find you and keep you in either case.
GSheridan–
Would you care to make a little wager to back up that big mouth of yours?
I have 50 bucks that says the Dems will keep their majorities in the House and the Senate in ‘08.
Cosmos–
Good luck getting Republican to answer a question. JM-Eier would never answer any questions put to him either.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
Capn’, Republi-who-ever-he-is only answers questions with more of the same stupidity. According to him, you can only be a Jew if you practice Judaism and a slur is not a slur unless he says it is a slur.
But we should all know better by now.
Hehe, yup.
How’s this for a slur: “meshuge mamzer”?
Oh, I’m sorry, Republican. I didn’t mean to imply I was referring to YOU as a meshuge mamzer.
After all, it’s in another language and I’m not even sure what it means.
Here, let me go look it up in Wikipedia, and I’ll get back with you . . .
Meshuge Mamzer.
Okay, well, Mamzer, I went to a Yiddish-English dictionary, and it turns out that “meshuge mamzer” could mean “crazy bastard” in English, but you see, the spelling is a little different depending on the dialect and how Yiddish is transliterated into English, so you should not necessarily assume that just because I keep calling you “crazy bastard” that it really means crazy bastard.
After all, just because your parents were crazy bastards doesn’t mean that you have chosen to maintain the crazy bastard traditions of your ancestors.
Meshuge . . . mamzer . . .