Say it ain't so, Sarah

I cringed when I heard Sarah Palin suggest that human activity might be to blame for so-called global warming in her ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson last week. The Republican VP nominee's claim instantly conjured up images of French President Nicolas Sarkozy breaking many of the pledges he boldly made during the presidential election campaign here in France in early 2007. As I watched Sarah Palin’s cut-and-thrust with the MSM (via the Internet here in France), I seriously wondered for one moment whether her remark was not yet another example of a politician saying one thing and doing another, once in office or on his or her way there.

Forgive my sensitivity. After all, we, American-inspired French conservatives, who have been gullible enough to believe that France might ever become anything other than a stronghold of socialism, have had our fair share of rude awakenings since the days of Turgot, Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say, and Frederic Bastiat.

Consider the latest wakeup call. As candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy straight-facedly promised to reform France along clear-cut free-market principles. Granted, since then, he has cut some taxes in an effort to boost investment and stimulate growth and made moves to dispel the notion that the work ethic is a dirty word.

However, where are the cuts in welfare spending that should have gone hand in hand with the tax changes? Instead, the entitlement mentality is still the cultural norm, and President Sarkozy has been busy implementing his very own brand of Robin Hood economics, robbing hard-working, hard-saving, law-abiding citizens not only to pay for his Al Gore-certified green revolution but also to bribe loafers and welfare queens to get back to work:

** He has approved green taxes on anything from cars, home appliances, and flat-screen TVs to computers, number crunchers for school children and even plastic cutlery used in barbecues and other outdoor meals;

** He has “asked” Total, France’s biggest oil company, to make a $312-million contribution to the French Treasury to help those who can’t afford it pay for nest winter’s heating bills following last summer’s rise in oil prices;

** Worst of all, he has just slapped a new 1.1% new tax on capital gains and other investment to fund a back-to-work program, all in the name of solidarity, a code word for socialistic wealth transfers here in France.

The list goes on. Bottom line? While Sarkozy's approval ratings have been edging up, France’s GDP growth in this year’s second quarter plummeted to –0.3%. Another batch of taxes and France will technically be in a recession by next quarter.

So please, Mrs. Palin, however morale-boosting your selection as John McCain’s running mate might justifiably be, forget about man-made global what-do-you-call-it and let us hear you talk consistently about free enterprise, traditional values and strong national defense.

Let us see you walk the wholeheartedly conservative walk all the way to victory on Nov. 4 -- and from there to the Oval Office in 2012.

Drill down to candidates' principles

(Denver Post, Sept. 7) Quick, who was Henry Cabbage Cod? Oops, I mean Henry Cabot Lodge. Who were Bill Miller and Sarge Shriver? Ed Muskie and Lloyd Bentsen? All were losing vice-presidential candidates of the past half-century, the first two Republicans, the others Democrats. Go to the head of the class if you knew that. Most people wouldn’t know or care. Outside the Beltway, there’s general agreement that the vice-presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm, uh, spit, as Jack Garner, VP under FDR, memorably put it. This year we have Sarah Palin the terrific versus Joe Biden the soporific. Their debate will be a doozy. But after November, one will become a historical footnote and the other will become auxiliary equipment, unlikely to either replace the 44th President or impact his administration much. That’s the American way. The 2008 election, like all of them since 1788, is about the men who would be President and the principles by which they would govern, period. While Palin-watching, Ayers-bashing, and other sideshows will continue to enliven the campaign, voters mustn’t be distracted from the big policy issues if we are to decide wisely. Two of the biggest are energy and health care.

Both are vital. To make them more affordable, should government get more involved, or work on getting out of the way? I’d say the latter, as a believer in individual liberty and free markets, based on our country’s unequaled success with voluntary approaches to abundance and innovation. McCain, though imperfect, is closer to this standard than Obama. That’s my reason, more than party or personality, for favoring him.

To illustrate why getting out of the way is better and what it would look like, I call to the witness stand Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute. The nonpartisan Bast – I doubt he’s ever voted Republican OR Democrat – wrote a series of issue guides called “Ten Principles.” As the rhetoric gets thick this fall, these booklets can help cut the fog.

Here are Joe Bast’s ten principles for energy policy: First, he warns, energy independence is an illusion; we’ll always have to import. Gasoline prices are market-driven. Global warming is not a crisis. Air pollution is not a major public health problem. Mercury from coal-fired power plants isn’t either.

That’s five, and by now you’re either liking these or steamed up. But be aware his argument for each (online at Heartland.org) is meticulously documented. The other energy principles are these: Biofuels should not be subsidized. CAFÉ mileage standards for vehicles sacrifice lives for oil. Electric deregulation is still necessary. Liquefied natural gas is part of the solution. Nuclear energy is too.

Emotion and hope favor the windmillers, data and reality favor the drillers. McCain-Palin want to drill, as does Bob Schaffer in his Senate race with Mark Udall. May their tribe increase. Republicans in Colorado and nationally also want to avoid Canada-style socialized medicine, and here too the liberty-minded Bast gives good reasons why.

His ten principles for health policy build on the cornerstone that health care isn’t a right but a service – and as such, best delivered by the market. To minimize government interference, we should repeal many existing regulations, reduce reliance on third-party payers, and help only those who need help. Single payer is not the answer.

Rounding out the Rx list on health care, Dr. Bast urges: Encourage entrepreneurship. Expand health savings accounts. Expand access to prescription drugs. Reduce malpractice litigation expenses. And finally, encourage long-term care insurance.

While you may prefer a different yardstick for health policy or energy, the ones from Heartland Institute work for me. Comparing platforms on these and many other issues, the GOP decisively trumps the Dems. Obama’s big-government future repels me. I’ll take McCain, warts and all.

Warning: 'Green Can Be Mean'

Editor: Are the Dems ready to fracture down the middle if attacked on the fault line between labor and environmentalists? New contributor Bob McBride thinks so. His message to union members suffering in the paycheck and cost of living from enviros' policies boils down to a cheeky bumper sticker: "Green Can Be Mean." Maybe McBride is onto something. See what you think. Bob McBride writes:

It has been correctly determined that the Democrat Party is a coalition…some say of nitwits and misfits, but an effective coalition nevertheless. For years this coalition approach worked well, the various segments could support each other’s single- focus interest because there was no conflict by and between them. “You vote for my constituent’s interests and I’ll vote for yours” was the way to play along, get along and stay along.

The two primary groups that give substance and strength to the Democrat coalition are organized labor and organized environmentalists. Labor unions not only have and offer money, the mother’s milk of politics, but also provide direct votes and actions influencing other voter activity. The teachers' union for example, is in an excellent position to influence parents' voting activity, by making available yard signs and other literature for school children to take home to their parents. There is no stated penalty for not supporting the teachers’ union election objectives, but there are anecdotal instances of suggestion.

The environmental segment has been incredibly successful in globally positioning itself above mere mortal standards and has cloaked itself in a holier-than-thou attitude toward clean air and clean water. The fact that their current interests and intrusions go far beyond these basics, and negatively impact many areas of economic importance and individual rights, is never given the attention it deserves. The media, either through ideological sympathy or fear of reprisal, never negatively present environmental causes when it is deserved.

What could be worse for a business or an individual than to be branded, constantly and contemptuously, as anti-environment with the emphasis on clean air, water and children? One could spend a lifetime and a fortune trying to disprove the slur.

Both organized labor and environmental organizations are critical to Democrat election victories, for the both are suppliers of funds and feet on the ground. If the Republicans develop a strategy to break the back- scratching relationship between the two, and cause a defection of either from the Democrat party, the result will be electoral victories for decades. The opportunity to do so exists.

Let’s dispense with the myth that organized labor is still run by a bunch of people on or from the factory floor, as in its inception. Organized labor is big business and it’s run as a business by MBA’s. Running a business requires tough decisions and Labor has made such a decision in its strategy for growth.

A union can grow revenue in either, or both, of two ways; raise the dues or increase the membership. Needless to say raising the dues is not looked upon favorably by the union’s customer base, the rank and file. In the past increasing membership in major union- target industries were fairly easy, using restrictive work rules as the instrument. However globalization and world outsourcing has made that much more difficult. Therefore the focus now is on the growth opportunities by organizing employees in new and different industries, and as we have seen, particularly with government workers. As a result Big Labor is spending millions in support of Democrats with the objective of getting legislation that makes organizing much easier and simpler, with little interest in the existing union member’s needs, as we shall see.

The chosen instrument at the moment is the Employee Free Choice Act which is not only a noxious euphemism but action contrary to the core principles of the labor movement… private elections and secret ballots with federal board oversight. The unions want to change the historic rules so that organizers need only 50% of employees to get it done, with individual workers forced to declare in the open. This is known as card check. The opportunity for coercion and intimidation is obvious. This change is so onerous to any right-thinking person that even George McGovern, a noted union supporter and staunch Democrat, railed against this subversive objective in an article for the Wall Street Journal.

The real point is Big Labor has abandoned the long-time union members and the industries in which they work. Where is Big Labor’s wrath at the environmental zealots and their political handmaids that have caused so much hardship and misery with the workers in the heavily unionized airline, automotive, and trucking industries? Why isn’t big labor exercising their leverage with the Democrats to get them to stop inhibiting oil drilling? Where are their efforts to stop the idiotic use of food as fuel, thereby driving the cost of living up for all workers?

Labor has chosen to ignore the past and chase the promise of the future. To labor leadership it is more important to keep the coalition in place, to ensure a Democrat victory and then pressure the winners for favorable organizing legislation, than it is to speak up on their member’s behalf and demand the Democrat Congress pass legislation for tapping our country’s energy assets. As mentioned above, in major industries hundreds of thousand of union members are out of work due to the price of oil and their unions are doing nothing about it.

Union thinking seems to be that the current unionized industries are probably not going to grow, so disregard them and use their organized members as the cash cow to fund the pursuit of greener pastures by the union leadership. So much for how sincerely the unions and the Democrats care about the worker. And that presents the opportunity for the Republicans. Here are the steps I would recommend.

The objective is to cause a fracture in the coalition within the Democrat party with a focus on the conflicting goals and objectives between labor and the radical environmental obstructionists. For the first time this conflict is real and very important .It must be made dramatically important to union rank and file.

First develop an advertising campaign that highlights the fact that union member dues- funds are being spent by the big shots at labor to buy prestige and votes from Democrat lawmakers and the presidential candidate, as well as to party at the recent convention. This ad should talk in real terms about union expenditures on behalf of Democrats and the fact that it is the Democrats that are holding up legislation on domestic and offshore drilling. It should also present the real number of people out of jobs by industry that is the result of the price of oil and its refined products. These ads should feature real people in real hurt. Pristine tundras don’t put reasonably priced food on the table or create paycheck jobs. It is the environmental extremists and their stranglehold on the Democrat party that is causing this misery and strife

In battleground states and particularly hard hit areas use as much local focus and facts as possible. The bumper sticker is “Green can be mean”. Ask the question of the union member: why should your dues be used to keep the party in power that has caused your job loss? Is that what a union that looks out for its membership does, or is the union leadership far more interested in feathering a future nest and cozying up to powerful politicians?

Too late now for this next little gambit --but what fun it would have been to look at the number of United and Frontier airline employees either out of work or soon to be out of work in Denver, and try and mount a picket line of union members at the DNC the final week of August, calling attention to their plight at the hands of Democrats. That could have been a show stopper.

We missed that one, but all sorts of other opportunities to dramatize the contradiction and drive the wedge will come along. The larger point is simply this: We need an incessant drumbeat that pits “enviros” against organized union workers. This should cause the permanent fracture of the coalition. It will be interesting to see which side the party hacks cling to. Will the Democrats choose labor or enviros? Create the atmosphere that they can’t have both.

.

$10 gas okay with Salazar

Today's entertainment is a video clip from the floor of the US Senate that looks like an absurd skit, but it's actually Sen. Ken Salazar refusing to contemplate more drilling even if pump prices reach $10 a gallon. No kidding; see for yourself. More proof that today's omnipresent videocams are the bane of politicians who say dumb things. More proof that YouTube rocks. More election-year misery for the Democrats. Here's the Grand Junction Sentinel story with Salazar's lame excuses.

Hat tip to State Rep. Rob Witwer, who caught up my radio listeners last night on this howler from early August.

Udall's U-turn on US oil

Mark Udall's message to Colorado voters is crystal clear: just tell me want you want to hear, and I'll say it. Here's a congressman who built his reputation as an uncompromising environmentalist, who has consistently opposed domestic energy exploration, and who has blocked construction of new refineries to make American energy supplies more secure.

Now, Udall wants us to believe that he's suddenly seen the light.

"We've got to produce our own oil and gas, right here in our country," he says in a new commercial paid for by his U.S. Senate campaign. Just what Colorado needs: another politician who will sell his soul to attain higher office.

Over the years, Udall's record on domestic energy production has been much more dogmatic than pragmatic, more extremist than centrist. He's voted to:

· Block drilling for American oil in Alaska or off shore at least nine times.

· Deny tax deductions for production of U.S. oil and gas, thereby putting American companies at a financial disadvantage versus their competitors in the Middle East, Russia and South America.

· Declare oil cartels like OPEC to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law, even though most high school seniors - not to mention Members of Congress - are smart enough to know that our laws do not apply to foreign oil companies.

· Oppose making abandoned military bases available for construction of new oil refineries, oblivious to the reality no new American oil refineries have been constructed since 1976, increasing our dependence on foreign refineries.

The Denver Post described Udall's U-turns as "sharp turnarounds for a man who has made the expansion of renewable energy a cornerstone of his career." The Politico, a Washington, D.C.-based journal, called the flip-flop "a clear shift from his previous opposition to such measures."

So, Colorado voters who are fed up with $4-a-gallon gasoline should ask themselves: Why does Mark Udall now claim to support domestic production of oil and gas? And does he truly mean it?

The most obvious answer to the first question is polling. In June and July, Udall held as much as a 10-point lead over his opponent, former Congressman Bob Schaffer. That lead evaporated in two more recent surveys.

A Rasmussen poll shows that 65% of Coloradans want to make increasing energy production the top priority over reducing energy consumption.

As to the sincerity of Udall's conversion, only the commercial paid for by his senate campaign backs him up. All other evidence suggests that this is a poll-driven conversion of political convenience.

Udall's own campaign website dwells on developing wind and solar power but says little about developing new sources of oil and gas. Instead, the Udall website falls back on old liberal canards, like "we cannot drill our way to energy security" and "not every place that can support oil drilling should be drilled."

That message falls flat with Coloradans who like the idea of renewable energy but also want affordable and reliable oil and gas in the meantime. Consider, also, Udall's five-point plan to address rising gas prices, posted on his congressional website. Four points do nothing to increase domestic energy resources. A fifth supports drilling off the shore of Cuba, but it is contained in a bill sponsored by Udall which hasn't even received a congressional hearing since it was introduced over a year ago.

If Udall were serious about developing domestic energy, wouldn't he have demanded a vote on his own bill before allowing Congress to take its summer vacation? Instead, Udall was campaigning in Colorado when a vote to consider a genuine domestic energy bill fell short by just one vote.

Finally, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that Udall's wife spent 20 years working for Sierra Club, whose webpage features a petition congratulating Speaker Nancy Pelosi for adjourning without bringing oil exploration to a vote.

Mark Udall hasn't changed his stripes. That's great news for his Boulder liberal base, but it's bad news for Coloradans who want affordable gas prices.