Below is the canned (I assume, please correct me if I am wrong) email I received from the Pierce County GOP, concerning Reichert’s Cap and Tax vote (on Jun 29):

Thank you for your email regarding Congressman Reichert’s vote on the Cap & Trade legislation.

The passion that everyone is expressing is the grass roots of our political system and it’s good to see so many people involved.

I will be delivering all of your emails this Wednesday to the Congressman!

Please stay in touch with the County Party and all of your legislators from your school boards, city councils, county councils, state legislature to the congressional folks.  It is our responsibility to keep all of these elected officials informed of our thoughts and concerns.    The ability to communicate so freely is unique to our country and a freedom we need to use responsibly.

Thank you for keeping in touch with us!

At least they responded.  I got NOTHING, Zilch, Zero, Nuttin’, Nada, from the State GOP (my email addressed Mr. Esser, the state chair).

By now, if you are not aware that Sarah Palin is resigning as Governor of Alaska on July 26, then you simply are not paying attention.

That’s my take on it, for now.  Only time will tell…

From the Seattle Times:

Washington, DC – Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) released the following statement today after the U.S. House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act:

“Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to  leading on these issues at a global level.

“This bill is not perfect, but it is a vital step toward energy independence. America cannot maintain global leadership without innovation and new ideas, and we cannot lead if we increasingly depend
on foreign nations to heat our homes and move people and goods. The price of inaction is too great; America cannot stand on the sidelines while our competitors embrace new energy efficient technologies. It’s also important that we engage in a bipartisan discussion as we move forward – this bill has many other hoops to jump through before it becomes law and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to gain more tax relief for middle-income families.

“Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them. Republicans must be at the table as we look for solutions in energy independence and preserving our environment, while also looking at the bigger picture and working with all of our colleagues for a stronger nation.”

OK, breaking this down:

Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to
leading on these issues at a global level.

So far so good.  I agree completely.  It’s of course the Democrat party that is playing Politics with this issue, by ramming it through with minimal debate, or even opportunity for the Representatives to read and digest the bill, with all of its last minute amendments, deals, and PLACEHOLDERS.  That’s right, PLACEHOLDERS.  They voted on a bill with a section that HASN’T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin: 

On the House floor this afternoon, Barney Frank explained the “placeholder” in the cap and trade bill that apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing
carbon emissions.

I feel so much better that we have a PLACEHOLDER in a piece of legislation of this magnitude, controlled by one of the main players in the Sub-Prime Mortgage crises.

This point alone should have been a deal killer.

This bill is not perfect, but it is a vital step toward energy independence. America cannot maintain global leadership without innovation and new ideas, and we cannot lead if we increasingly depend
on foreign nations to heat our homes and move people and goods.

He is right, that this bill is NOT perfect.  It is far from perfect.  Nor will it be a vital step towards energy independence.  What it does is handicap american industry, at the very time that we should be trying to rehabilitate it; and kills more jobs than it will create.  Oh, and as an added bonus, it will greatly increase the cost of energy in the United States, while forcing oil refineries off shore, to nations with far more lax environmental laws.

Courtesy of Bloomberg:

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.

So, there go America’s refinery jobs, and with the added bonus of being more dependent on foreign energy!

Back to Reichert:

The price of inaction is too great; America cannot stand on the sidelines while our competitors embrace new energy efficient technologies. It’s also important that we engage in a bipartisan discussion as we move forward – this bill has many other hoops to jump through before it becomes law and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to gain more tax relief for middle-income families.

We have two “alternative” energy sources available that we are ignoring:  Nuclear and Hydro-Electric.

In fact, according to the Washington Times;

Renewable energy accounts for about 8.5 percent of domestic electricity generation, but the House bill’s renewable mandate would not recognize all of that as renewable. Hydropower, for example, which makes up a large chunk of current electricity generation, is not all counted as renewable toward the new mandate.

So, it has the be the right kind (read: Politically Correct) form of energy…

And as far as “tax relief for middle income families” goes, the idea that more than a pittance of the Cap and Trade money will filter down to the consumer is laughable on it’s face.

Courtesy of Fox/Liz Peek:

A sober assessment of the government’s budget situation over the next decade would lead some to think that there is about as much chance of cap-and-trade revenues being recycled back to taxpayers as there is of Nancy Pelosi taking command of the CIA. The government is looking high and low for revenues to fund healthcare legislation and a slew of other programs; this torrent will be just too delicious to give up.

Remember the Social Security Lockbox?  Just how many times do our Representatives have to lie to us, before we wise up?

But I guess the part that really stings is when Reichert puts himself in the company of Teddy Roosevelt:

“Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them. Republicans must be at the table as we look for solutions in energy independence and preserving our environment, while also looking at the bigger picture and working with all of our colleagues for a stronger nation.”

Now, I am a BIG fan of TR – I think he is the quintessential American President.  TR embodied the America of his time.

But TR was unable to curb his own political ambition, and his ill advised run for the Presidency against William Taft (on the Bull Moose party ticket, as he had failed to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft – who was his chosen successor), costing both the election, and allowing Woodrow Wilson to win, with only 42% of the vote.  We are still dealing with the fallout of the Wilson presidency, to this day.

So I guess there is some similarity to TR, after all.

The Republican’s had a far better alternative to the Cap and Tax Economy Killer bill, the American Energy Innovation Act, HR. 2828, which the Democrat Party killed in “Bipartisan” fashion…

The only question I have left for Reichert, not that I expect to ever find out the truth of the matter, is:  Did you vote for this bill out of personal conviction, or were you offered some kind of deal?

All I can say, for myself, is that I refuse to support anyone who puts American families and their well being second to passing what is a really bad piece of legislation, out of the misguided notion that something is better than nothing.

If Reichert (and just two or three other turncoats) had stood strong, they could have forced the Democrat dictators in the House to reconsider their definition of “Bipartisan”.

Thanks, Dave.  Hope you aren’t counting on my vote in 2010.

Maybe Obama is hiring for all the new bureaucracy he is creating…

From Michelle Malkin, we get the link to the final talley, showing Congressman Dave Reichert voting AYE, to PASS the Cap and Trade Economy Killer Bill.

As Michelle asks;

There are 7 GOP turncoats with recorded YEA votes.

What were their payoffs???

I hope Dave Reichert’s payoff was worth it, because he has now thrown his lot in with the job killers in the Democrat party.

I held my nose and voted for Reichert in 2008, because he is a squishy Republican at best.  There was never any thought that he was a conservative.  But the alternative was Darcy Burner.

At least Burner would not have stabbed her Liberal supporters in the back, like Reichert has with conservatives, Republicans, and working people.

Even if this Bill gets stopped in the Senate, Reichert has given the fanatics on the left some degree of cover, by supporting this monstrosity of a bill.

I will be happy to campaign for ANYONE who wants to run against Reichert for his House seat in 2010.

I will, to borrow a turn of phrase, vote for a yelllow dog, before I ever vote for Dave Reichert again.

I have stayed away from this for a week, but feel compelled to comment at this point.

Last night, Letterman issued a non-apology:

“All right, here – I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week – it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani … and I really should have made the joke about Rudy …” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game, and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.

“And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ – this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly – ” (audience applause) “– thank you. Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause).

Now, the thing that is MOST wrong about this is that Letterman is so tone-deaf that it took a WEEK of criticism before he really understood that he had done something wrong.  But even then, he doesn’t recognize that he made a mistake – it’s everyone ELSE’S fault for their PERCEPTION of what he said.  He still contends that it would have all been OK, if the Palin daughter that he joked about was 18 years old, instead of 14.

But almost as bad – and certainly worse, from certain perspectives – is that Letterman felt that it was not only OK and fair to make sexual jokes about the children of a political figure, simply because he, and his hyper liberal audience, disagree with the parents’ politics.

And not making sexual jokes about the children, but the parents as well.

This is the state of civil(?) discourse in the United States today.

If you disagree with someones politics, you are free to malign them, and smear their character, in ways that would have led to an invitation to a Duel 200 years ago, and a beating by the persons relatives even 100 years ago.

But today, public figures in general, and Conservatives in particular, are considered fair game for slander that would have landed people in court for defamation of character even 30 years ago.

And why are Conservatives in particular subjected to this kind of gutter commentary and “comedy”?  Because they tend, as a group, to praise basic values such as chastity, traditional marriage, and traditional family values.  Any black mark in their personal lives (such as a teenage daughter becoming an unwed mother) is seen as proof of hypocrisy, and becomes an open license to besmirch and smear the parent, as well as the entire family.

Which really is the point, from the perspective of the Left.  It is necessary to tear down their opponents on a personal level, to level the playing field, since Leftists believe that their are no standards that should be defended.  The left believes that all lifestyles are equal; that morals and ethics, and standards of conduct are simply local eccentricities, and none are worthy of being help up as superior to another. 

But it’s really really hard to make jokes about political corruption, or sexual misconduct, about a group of people who feel that there is nothing wrong with either issue.

So a Governor of a State of the Union becomes a “Slutty Flight Attendant”.  And Letterman doesn’t feel that he has to apologize for that.

So, no, Letterman still doesn’t get it. 

But I am not calling for a boycott of his sponsors, or for his termination.  But I think what he should be compelled to do is spend a week living with a Conservative family.  For Letterman, and for that matter, most of the people on the left that think like him, that would be the cruelst punishment of all, becuase they just might come to understand that Conservatives are people too, and worthy of some modicum of respect.

That we can disagree, without dehumanizing and demeaning those that we disagree with.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican.  When I turned 18, in the great state of Alaska, I registered as a Libertarian.  While I had some quibbles over a couple of planks in the Libertarian platform, over all, it was the best fit for my beliefs.

In the fullness of time, and several relocation’s, I became an Independant (or Non-Partisan, depending on the options), because my political leanings had shifted somewhat, and I no longer felt that I could fully support the Libertarian party, and their predilication to self destruction – but the Republicans didn’t impress me as having the strength of their convictions.

When Washington went to a closed primary, and since I typically support Republican candidates, simply as the lesser of evils, I felt it was prudent to register as a Republican, so I could participate in the primary process.

I have since changed back to Independent, because, as before, I am convinced that the Republicans no longer actually stand for anything, except for being LESS socialist than the Democrat party.

Submitted for your consideration, several bullet points from the GOP 2008 platform:

Republicans will uphold and defend our party’s core principles:
Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional
functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their
lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for
essential government functions.  Unleash the power of enterprise,
innovation, civic energy, and the American spirit – and never pretend
that government is a substitute for family or community.

The federal government collects $2.7 trillion a year from American
families and businesses.  That’s $7.4 billion a day.  Even worse, it
spends over $3 trillion a year: $8.2 billion a day.  Why? Largely
because those who created this bloated government will not admit a
single mistake or abolish a single program.

The long term solution for many of Washington’s problems is structural.
Congress must respect the limits imposed upon it by the Tenth
Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”

Modern management of the federal government is long overdue.  The
expected retirement over the next ten years of more than 40 percent of
the federal workforce, and 60 percent of its managers, presents a rare
opportunity: a chance to gradually shrink the size of government while
using technology to increase its effectiveness and reshape the way
agencies do business.

Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because
unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the
Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal
opinions upon the public.  This must stop.

All sound great don’t they?

But when was the last time the Republicans actually DID something that fits these ideals?  1998?  Certainly not in the 21st century, though they held the white house, and Congress.

It’s easy to publish a platform – it’s quite another thing to commit to support the principals in that document.

But without a party platform – without a basic statement of principals and goals – what is a political party?  It is nothing more than a coalition of people who band together to raise resources in an attempt to gain a share of political power.

And by voting for people that do not actively support a party platform that you agree with, you are not advancing your own agenda – you are just helping them advance theirs.

For what it’s worth, you can also take a look at the Democrat 2008 platform here.  59 pages of Cumbaya feel goodism – and they say High Fructose Corn Syrup is bad for you.  You may need a shot of insulin after you wade through this mess of saccharin like sweetness.  Of course, it is so broad a document, and so over reaching of constitutionality, that it is relatively easy for a Democrat canididate to claim to be in compliance with the platform.  Indeed, as long as they vote for more spending and growth of government, they would be fullfilling the intent, if not the actual letter, of their platform.

So, in the void created by the Republicans, and their failure to live up to their platform, other actors are striding onto the stage.

The Tea Party movement – not a coherent party as such, but a grass roots conglomerate of various groups and citizens that are fed up with the Federal (and State) governments over reaching and over spending.

The Modern Whig Party – A revival effort of a party that had 4 presidents elected in the 1st half of the 19th century – Lincoln was a Whig, before the party shattered over Slavery, and the abolitionists formed the Republican Party from the ruins.  Very basic, Constitutional issues statement on thier site.

The Patrick Henry Caucus - formed to support strict Consitutionalist reform, and specifically the 10th amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

And others.

The Republican Party can actually start living up to it’s platform, or they can fade away.  It is not a choice for the party to make – it is a choice for the parties candidates to make.

Yeah, that’s right, Newt for President.

Like Reagan in the late 70’s, Gingrich is the spirit of Conservatism is the early 21st century.

Even if he chooses not to run for the Presidential nomination, he must certainly be intimately involved in reforming and re-energizing the GOP and the Conservative movement.

Spend some time at his website.  You’ll like it…