Gop going unde?? I think so.

• reply

Mr. Clark, you shouldn't paint with such broad strokes.  The role of the party is not to pass public policy, that is left to the citizen legislature.  It is simply the vehicle through which we ought to be electing Republicans!  And what would you have them do to Reichart, anyways? Flog him in the public square?  He is responsible to the voters of his district, not the state committee or even the party chair (local or state).

What does the state gop's platform say in this regard, anyways? Did you check that before you published this screed?

• reply

Reichert got literally thousands of e-mails from Republicans all over the state and in particular from his district asking him to vote no on this massive tax increase.  He voted against their pleadings, and as any politician he will pay the price for it. Reichert wins by the thinnest of margins and he desperately needs the support of the CONSERVATIVES in his district to win. So, I suppose, if he voted as he said, “I just saw an energy bill there!” (I heard him make that statement); then we need someone who can read to be our representative in Congress.

As for the function of the party, there are a number of us who wonder about the point you have made here: just what is the role of the GOP? Many conservatives have very specific ideas about changing that role and making sure that the GOP doesn’t commit political suicide ever again.

Finally, most platforms are voted on and taken down during an election year with information at hand at the time. Frankly, much has changed, so I am suggesting that the Platform of the State GOP is not just out of date, but completely irrelevant.

I would also call your attention to Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper and what he did when forging a conservative coalition in Canada. Many here are talking about that as we write and read:

LINK

• reply

I would guess the reason the Republican party hasn't come out against global warming is because approximetly 90% of scientists, most countries in the world, and the UN all believe global warming to be real and largely the result of human activity. If you want I can go through and find stories for each, or you could have read those I posted the last time this discussion came around on here.

The possible reason Reichard voted for the bill is because he actually understood that it would not be the ridiculous $3400 per family you claim, but (if anything) much lower and will help protect the environment not just from global warming, but also from general air and water pollution. When that became something Republicans want to be against I'm not sure, but you are more than welcome to go down that path as the majority of Americans support environment regulations.

• reply

90% of scientists think global warming is real

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

And I said there might be some tax, and the CBO estimated that would be approximetly $175 per family

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/how-much-cap-and-trade-bill-would-cost-families/?scp=5&sq=cap%20and%20trade&st=cse

Now you can tell me why Republicans don't feel environmental regulations are important

• reply

As for the costs of the Al Gore Cap and Trade bunko scheme, how about the Brookings Institute, the National Review, and another NY Times piece? All three reports say the same thing: it will be a huge tax and I go with the Heartland Institute’s estimate of over $3,800 per family.

 As for CNN’s reporting of the Geo Sciences survey: The survey was of Geologists and it was clear when the survey was sent out the message was clear that the respondents would be indentified by name and they could kiss their grants goodbye unless they voted politically correct. Geologists don’t have enough background in thermodynamics to be able to understand much of anything, so this piece is just another reason CNN has no audience except hardcore leftwing "true believers".

Here is a story from the US Senate about the growing huge number of real scientists who say its all a bunch on nonsense and a real explanation from Dr. Fox from over in Spokane who IS AN EXPERT!

I would call our reader’s attention to the UN group being chaired by Mr. Yvo de Boer head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And specifically what are Mr. de Boer’s academic credentials and scientific background for such an IMPORTANT position?  He has a low level, two year technical degree in SOCIAL WORK from an institute/community college in the Netherlands.  He is also a long time socialist, well known for his crackpot environmental ideas in European circles. In other words: I doubt if he could spell thermodynamics much less explain the math or even explain how the absorption spectrum of CO2 and it’s miniscule concentration in our atmosphere could have any effect at all on much of anything, except YOUR pocketbook. He wants the USA to send 580 Billion a year to third world countries “damaged by climate change disasters caused by excessive consumption and therefore excessive emissions of that awful carbon dioxide!”  

This is my final word to Mr. Anonymous, unless you are willing to disclose who you are and indentify what qualifications to have to even discuss the subject.

• reply

 There is no state in the union that needs a third party more than washington. The GOP here is spineless and worthless.

• reply