These three paragraphs come to the heart of the matter, I think.  Bear in mind that Governor Nixon’s overall goal is that there be less power usage, which sounds marvelous until you contemplate the implications of a population that’s increasing faster than power production.  If you don’t want to increase power supply, and you can’t control the population, the only way to manage the situation is to set up conditions where individual expectations of fair-share power are lowered to a level that equals the supply.  We have an adjective to describe that condition.

It’s ‘poor.’

Usually, regulators allow utilities to recoup the cost of building power plants or buying more power to meet customer demand. Recently, the Missouri Public Service Commission began allowing some utilities to pass along to customers the cost of programs that reduce demand for electricity.

For example, the commission last week approved a program in which St. Louis-based AmerenUE can offer credits to businesses that voluntarily shut down or scale back their electricity use during peak demand. AmerenUE will be able to recoup the cost for the program that starts Thursday by increasing the rates it charges business customers.

[snip]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that energy-saving programs offered by utilities will add about 3 percent to the average electricity rates. But it says customers who participate in the programs could save 10 percent to 20 percent on their energy bills, and even those who don’t participate might save if utilities don’t have to buy more energy or build new power plants.

(Bolding mine)

So, if you’re somebody who thinks that it makes more sense to build more power plants, eat the cost, let the price of power drop down because of increased supply and less interference in their operation, and maybe fund the energy savings systems that way? Let me put it like this:

Don’t elect Democrats (like Jay Nixon) Governor of your state.
If you do elect Democrats (like Jay Nixon) Governor of your state, stop.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Clearly.

Bill Clinton to raise money for NY Dem challenger

WASHINGTON – In a slap at President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser for a New York congresswoman challenging White House-backed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand in the state’s Democratic primary.

Clinton has not endorsed in the race, but his efforts to help Rep. Carolyn Maloney could be seen as a snub to Gillibrand and the Obama White House. Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Clinton, said he will be attending a July 20 fundraiser in New York.

(H/T: Hot Air)

Hey, it’s as good an answer as any other, right? Personally, I’d consider Clinton a trade-up, myself.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Eric Holder recently went before Congress to call for a strengthened hate crimes bill. It occurs to me that calling his office at 202-353-1555 and politely inquiring how the Department of Justice is doing in its investigation of this existing one would be an excellent way to start your work week.

Moe Lane

PS: The response to this should not break down along partisan political lines; I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be the case.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Madison — As the state agency charged with running elections, the Government Accountability Board can’t show favor for Republicans or Democrats.

But is it biased toward anarchists?

The board recently launched a new logo - an A inside a circle - that looks similar to the traditional symbol for anarchy.

As a ruthless deconstruction of the existing pseudo-countercultural, mainstreamed paradigm of the “Other” as postmodern culture hero by taking possession of iconic imagery and reinfusing it with a radical sensibility via the deliberately ironic juxtaposition of pre-rebellious concepts with the symbol of rebellion itself, it’s quite good.

:pause:

So I was an English major in college. Sue me.

Open thread.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

So they can go ahead and pass that cap-and-trade bill of theirs already, and stop bugging the GOP on it. We have midterm elections to prepare for.

Oh my yes, we have midterm elections to prepare for.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

“They got great burgers, but no new jobs.” Come on: that’s funny.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Energy policy is going to loom rather large, running up the 2010 elections; should KBH resign her seat to run for Governor, it would be helpful to have this guy in there.  Heck, I wouldn’t mind having him in there now.

Moe Lane

PS: He’ll be at the RS Gathering.

Full disclosure: I am in regular contact with the Michael Williams campaign, and I endorse him as a replacement to Senator Hutchison, should she resign her Senate seat.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Biden fails to draw crowd in Erie

Wattsburg, Pa. — Vice President Joe Biden visited a small town on the outskirts of Erie today to talk to rural folks about federal stimulus money that can be used to expand broadband access to the Internet for rural areas that typically have poor connections.

Apparently stimulus money and broadband are not all that interesting to the local folk here: Only around 100 or so people have showed up so far to hear Biden talk at noon at Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg.

The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house.

See also Texans for Sarah Palin, which has a suggestion that’s as predictable as it is apropos. I’m told that the report is that Biden wasn’t really impressive to the people who bothered to show up, but… really, by what standard?

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

*Never fails, does it?  Well, if even Jove nods…

Those are, generally speaking, the six most powerful committees in the House of Representatives - and if you’ll note carefully, you’ll see that the chairs of them that aren’t pushing seventy are the ones who are pushing eighty* (the average age of Representatives in the 111th Congress is 57).  You’ll also note that the least amount of time-in-Congress for any of them is twenty-eight years; in fact, all but two of them have been in Congress for longer than I’ve been alive, and I’ll be forty next year.  This is not really unexpected (except, of course, by people silly enough to believe that Democratic control of Congress meant a “fresh start,” or some other nonsense): seniority counts for a lot in determining committee assignments.  So what?

‘So what’ is that each one of these Members of Congress personally remember the shock and horror of 1995, when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time since the 1950s.  Most of them had been in office for at least two decades by then (one for three), and all of them must have been accustomed to the notion that Democratic control of Congress was simply one of those things that existed.  To have it suddenly go away - while leaving them secure in their own seats - was probably a very traumatic experience.  But they kept on, moved up the internal party seniority ladder; and now that the Democrats are in control again, they are in positions of authority, with the power to bind and to loose.  Getting there was grueling, though, and they are old.  They have the prize that they seek, but they are old.

What do you think will happen if we take that prize away from them?

Again?

I don’t know either - but I know some people who are as eager to find out as I am.  Not that they can do it on their own.

Moe Lane

*No, it’s not actually important for the purposes of discussion how old their replacements would be on the GOP side: I haven’t even bothered to look it up.  Focus.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Yeah, I know: overly fussy of me.  Particularly since a couple of people are probably grinding their teeth right now over the Old Grey Lady referring to RedState as ‘popular.’

Moe Lane

*They called me a ‘commentator’ instead of a ’site moderator’ - or, as it says on my business cards, ‘Chief Protocol Officer.’  Although, honestly?  The correct title would probably be more like this.

**It’s rude to go through a paper at the store and see if an article made the print section.  As for buying a New York Times… well, what would I do with one, once I had it?  I don’t own a canary.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Since everybody else is piling on, let me add my own comment to the fray.  If you were one of the people who participated in that Vanity Fair hit piece, and we find out your name, you will be a net drag on any national campaign for the rest of your professional career.  Not because you helped the Left go after Governor Palin, but because you are an untrustworthy sneak who is dedicated to propping up the elitist system in DC, not fixing it.   Any candidate that hires you will have to overcome the base’s natural reluctance to work with a campaign that would hire someone like you.  This can be done; but it’s much easier to hire people with your skill set and a name for basic party loyalty.

If you are a McCain staffer who did not talk to VF, I suggest that you find some way to demonstrate that you aren’t one of the people in the first paragraph.  Because until we know who talked, the default assumption is going to be that you may have talked.  This will not wreck your career, but it will blight it if the base has anything to say about it.  On the bright side, a simple and declarative denial will do; of course, if your denial is a lie and we catch you at it, brush up on your typing skills.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

The “how was your day” question is kind of weird for a blogger to explain…

Ain’t that the truth. I suspect that my wife approaches that question the same way that a bomb squad approaches a suspicious package. Alas, I always ask her how her day went, so she’s stuck.

Moe Lane

*Yes, that is a slur on the Weekly World News. I apologize for it.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

• Via Little Miss Attila, we see that getting cap-and-trade passed in the Senate is seen as being… problematical.
• Via Instapundit, we see that Al Franken is now officially the junior Senator from Minnesota. That, of course, makes sixty.
• Via Hot Air, we see that the netroots are threatening to go on Crusade against the Democratic party if the Democrats don’t start using their clear mandate to do everything that the progressives want them to do.
• Via Ace of Spades HQ, we see that Gallup is reporting that the public’s perception of the Democratic party have just flipped, with a plurality of the population now thinking that the party is too liberal (for the first time since 1996).
• Via Rasmussen, we see that a plurality of the population doesn’t like this bill (41%) and doesn’t think that it’ll help the economy (42%).  That’s a lot of Earth traitors.
• And, oh, yes: the GOP flipped the generic Congressional ballot again - although that last will probably bounce back and forth for a while.

Yeah. This is going to be an interesting July.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

For the Minnesota Supreme Court decision declaring Al Franken the winner, that is.

Real fast: the ABC News report that was sent out is actually from January; apparently the Governor was not specifically ordered to issue the certificate (don’t ask me why); Gov. Pawlenty made one of those statements:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty had indicated as late as Monday that he was willing to certify Mr. Franken as the winner once the state’s highest court decided the recount and Mr. Coleman’s battle. On CNN on Sunday, Mr. Pawlenty said: “I’m prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light.”

Asked what he would do if Mr. Coleman decided to appeal to the federal courts, as had been mentioned before this ruling, Mr. Pawlenty added: “A federal court could stay or put a limit on or stop the effect of the state court ruling. If they chose, if they do that, I would certainly follow their direction. But if that doesn’t happen promptly or drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead with signing this, particularly if I’m ordered to do that by the state court.”

Some legal experts already are pointing out that the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue a directive ordering Governor Pawlenty to sign the certificate. And there is, according to legal experts, a rehearing period of 10 days, under the Minnesota judges’ ruling.

And so we wait to see what Norm Coleman does next. Hotline says it’ll be to concede: either way, it’ll be at 4 PM.

Every dollar you give through tomorrow, June 30th, will be quadrupled. So if you give $5, we’ll make it $20. If you can afford $25, we’ll make it $100.

That’s four times the impact of a normal contribution, and it will be put to immediate use replacing Pelosi’s puppets in Congress with principled, conservative Republicans.

At this point, somebody has reflexively started a very long comment on why this offer should be ignored. While he’s writing it, let me explain why you shouldn’t.

There’s anger over those eight GOP Yes votes for that cap-and-trade monstrosity. I share it. There’s also a movement afoot to deny the NRCC money until they… do something. Repudiate sitting members, or beat them with sticks, or put a big P around their necks, or something like that. It’s a natural reaction. It’s also the wrong reaction, for three reasons.

1). It’s an over-reaction. Wherever you stand on the NRSC’s current strategy - and it’s not as clear-cut a situation as you might expect - the central problem that activists have there is that the NRSC seems vulnerable to the following scenario:

• Support the incumbent over the challenger.
• Challenger does not win.
• Incumbent hurts the GOP somehow.

The two most obvious examples are Chafee and Specter, and now they seem to be gearing up to do the same thing with Crist/Rubio.  In other words, GOP activists want the NRSC out of the primary business; again, you may think that’s a bad idea, but it’s definitely the central point of disagreement.  In the NRCC’s case, their primary strategy - vote en bloc against the Democrats’ bills if they’re not going to be allowed meaningful input - is one that the base actually agrees with.  What happened is that in one test vote eight legislators broke with the GOP, including the NRCC.

2. Punishing the NRCC does not punish (mostly) its renegade legislators.  I say ‘mostly’ because two of them are in the Patriot Program, and the NRCC does need to reassess their membership in that.  Of the rest, two are probably running for Senate seats (which will make them the NRSC’s worry) and the rest are probably safe enough anyway.  So; we go after 25% of less than 5% of the GOP, over a bill that we’re already targeting half a dozen Democrats over:

Those likely to find themselves with targets on their back after the 219-212 vote: freshman Reps. Harry Teague of New Mexico, Betsy Markey of Colorado, John Boccieri of Ohio, Thomas Perriello of Virginia and Alan Grayson of Florida and second-termer Zack Space of Ohio.

Which leads to…

3). It hurts GOP challengers worst, not GOP incumbents.  Below is a list of five of the best challengers for GOP seats.  Not all of them, by a long shot - but five representative races where we have a shot at taking out the incumbent.

Who do you think will be funding them? For that matter, who do you think helped some of them get their campaigns running? The NRCC is in the middle - which is to say, it’s not done yet - of an extensive recruiting effort to make sure that vulnerable Democrats get credible challengers; and those challengers all have at least one thing in common. None of them voted Yes on Waxman-Markey.

Now, after all of this, you still want to lash out at the NRCC: fine. But no illusions: you are lashing out at it. You are not teaching a lesson; you are not giving negative feedback; you are not even punishing them. And you’ll need to deal with the implications of that. As for myself… well, I clicked the link and gave the NRCC twenty bucks. Which I don’t really have, given that I’m reduced to running personal fundraisers to get me a coach ticket to the RS Gathering. But losing what’s effectively a week’s pay for me these days is worth it if I can use it to hammer home that this is important.

And it is.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.

…I’m reminded of this bit from Robert Heinlein’s Expanded Universe. In one didactic bit, he has a Senator propose something called a ‘Semantic Amendment:’

“It permits a citizen to challenge the Constitutionality of any law or regulation, Federal or any lesser authority, on the grounds that it is ambivalent, equivocal, or cannot be understood by a person of average intelligence. Paragraph two defines ‘average intelligence.’ Paragraph three defines and limits the tests that may be used to test the challenged law. The fourth paragraph excludes law students, law school graduates, lawyers, judges, and uncertified j.p.’s from being test subjects.”

Fascinating to contemplate, no? Also, exceptionally unlikely to happen any time soon. But that’s not precisely the point. The point is that when people start talking about changing the Constitution like this, what they’re really saying is “I’m getting sick and tired of the idiots running things right now.”

Let those in power with eyes to see not see this, and not understand - for they are not of my political party.

Moe Lane

PS: I don’t know: how many people like Bob Gale are out there? Guess we’ll just find out, huh?

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

It’s bad when the White House press pool can’t keep a straight face.

Anyway, you’ll need a palate cleanser in order to properly appreciate this recipe for carpetbag steak (via @EdDriscoll). I don’t even really like oysters, and this sounds tasty.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

Now, I’m not one who would normally get into a man’s religious beliefs, but any faith that requires you to anathematize what was at last count 40% of the population* as ‘traitors to the planet’ seems to be a very silly faith for a pundit to have, or at least espouse openly. For extra irony? I’ll bet you that if and when Krugman gets muttering drunk, one of his favorite topics of slurred discussion is probably a tirade on the subject of the perfidy of fundamentalist Christians.

Moe Lane

PS: Sister Toldjah has more at the link on the topics on the peculiarities of Krugman’s faith, the sudden permissibility of defining dissent as treason, and this administration’s own War on Science.  No reason to reproduce her work.

*Some will no doubt take some comfort from the thought that the omens favor them this month.  Alas, they can’t pass massive tax bills that nobody’s read every month… well, they can, but they’d be stupid to.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Iraqis Celebrate Day of National Sovereignty Marking US Troop Pullback

Iraqis are staging a national celebration to mark the impending June 30th withdrawal of U.S. troops from most cities, towns and villages. Celebrations in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, include music, dance and poetry.

I think that this is a nicely iconic image:

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

That being said: this was a test vote, and these eight represent eight ‘Blue Dogs’ that could safely vote No on this bill and keep pretending to their constituents that they believe in fiscal responsibility, and there needs to be some sort of response to that.

I have a modest suggestion along those lines, and his name is Anh “Joseph” Cao (LA-02).

If there is a Congressman who should have gotten a signed note from Boehner excusing him from voting the GOP line, it should be Cao: we took that seat through [a metaphor that is unfortunately not really approrpriate when discussing New Orleans] in 2008; he’s going to be running for re-election in a district that is D+28; and his opponent’s candidacy is going to be fueled by outside Democratic money outraged at the sight of a Republican in that seat*.  Despite that fact, Cao’s voted with the GOP on the first two test votes (’stimulus’ and cap-and-trade), very possibly at the expense of his long-term Congressional prospects**.  In other words, there’s some loyalty there.

Now.  Mike Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois are widely believed to be contemplating Senate runs in 2010.  To do that, they’re going to be needing money and support, because it’s certainly not guaranteed that they’ll win.  So I ask you: if you have twenty dollars that you had assigned to ’speculative races,’ who do you think needs it more right now?  Heck, who do you think has earned it?  Castle and Kirk, who’d like a promotion - or Cao, who’d like to keep his job?

Well, after you contribute to Cao, do one last thing: call up Rep. Castle’s (202-225-4165) and Kirk’s (202-225-4835) office and politely tell them that they lost that speculative money, because you’ve decided to reward loyalty.  And if they want you to find space in the budget for another twenty dollars to support their Senate races, they had best start taking seriously the ‘R’ after their names.

I think that this is a constructive way to handle the situation.

Moe Lane

*Doubly outraged at the sight of a non-white Republican in that seat, but that’s the Northeast for you.

**This is usually the point where a certain type of commenter starts looking for a heretical vote that Cao’s cast to justify not supporting him.  Don’t bother: he has.  But I’m not going to make it easier for the Democrats to take this or any seat, and neither should anybody else.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.