Best of thelobbyist 2009
Thanks to all our readers for making 2009 a great year for thelobbyist.? Below you will find the top post from each month during the 2009 calendar year.
January – 8 days until EPA annihilation of America?Stop Them! – nick r. brown
February – Pseudo-Scientists Kill Possum (Not to be confused with Opossum) – nick r. brown
March – Conservatives Just Don?t ?Get It? – nick r. brown
April – Pay for Performance Act of 2009: An Encroachment of a Free Society – sam theodosopoulos
May – ?I?d Pretend I Was One Of Those Deaf-Mutes.? – nick r. brown
June – Fox News Presents Obstacle For NH GOP Opportunity – sam theodosopoulos
July – Tie: The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn?t Help Conservatives & Personal Democracy Forum: The Future of the Conservative Movement – nick r. brown
August – The Moore You Know About Obama? -? tom qualtere
September – Conservatives Are Right On Gay Marriage – dustin siggins
October - We?ve Never Begged For Money? – nick r. brown
November – An Actual Solution To Health Care Reform -? nicholas j. rohrhoff
December – Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform – dustin siggins
-nick
Boxer’s Opponents Scraping The Barrel
A few months ago, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had an ego trip with a general who called her ma’am. This caused quite a bit of hilarity among conservatives, and wincing among Democrats. Now Boxer’s primary opponent hopefuls are making the most out of it.
The arrogance of Boxer will light a bit of a fire under the seat of the tiny Republican base in California, but it won’t play out in the general election. Boxer is powerful- the current chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee- and a third-term senator. Incumbency is a huge strength in congressional elections, and Boxer isn’t going to lose to a Republican in California, especially one using an example of her arrogance as a primary weapon.
What might work, however is continuing to highlight her major support and substantial role in creating a cap-and-trade bill; highlight how the bill was pushed to next year by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), indicating both how unpopular it is and how there are no major plans to pass it (no, Democrats are not going to pass a job-killing bill in the same year as an election during a major recession); and perhaps how even President Obama has admitted electricity costs will skyrocket and how the EPA Administrator admitted earlier this year in Hill testimony that ?[she] believe[s] that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.? Too, emphasize how it was liberals who created California’s economic and other messes, and how conservatives can fix them.
EPA Laws Are Good- Unless They Aren’t
According to CQ Politics, new Environmental Protection Agency pollution regulations set to take effect in 2010 will not effect a number of ships that travel in the Great Lakes Region.?According to CQ: “During the comment period that ended Sept. 28, the Lake Carriers Association and Propeller Club of the United States opposed the rule. The Propeller Club warned in its comments that the proposal ?could potentially cripple the shipping capacity and the entire maritime industry along the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway.?”
The?regulations (and their exemptions) will be considered in the 2010 Interior-Environment appropriations bill. While I am against much of what the EPA does, would it be too much for politicians to NOT let special interests dictate how they vote, regulate and legislate? A standard is a standard- either the regulations should be followed or not followed. As much as I dislike saying it, I respect someone like Frank O?Donnell of Clean Air Watch.?CQ references O’Donnell, who as an environmentalist holds everyone to same standard, and who?”said excluding the 13 oldest ships, one reportedly 103 years old, means continued pollution for the Great Lakes region.”
Democrats said they would clean house in 2007 and 2009- the question now is do they REALLY believe in climate change legislation, or is this just another way to get elected, at the expense of the nation’s economy?
Meet Alan Carlin: The EPA’s Inconvenient Voice
The following was originally published and is the sole property of NewsBusters.org and the Media Research Center.
With the recent narrow passage of the controversial Waxman-Markey ?cap and trade? bill in the House and the ongoing debate over global warming, one should expect balanced coverage of both sides of the issue. However, much of the media has neglected to report on the alleged ?hush up? of an EPA research analyst whose report on global warming prompted his supervisor to warn it could have had a ?very negative impact on this office.?
At 8:45 a.m. EDT on the June 30 edition of “Fox and Friends,” EPA Senior Operations Research Analyst Alan Carlin, told interviewer Steve Doocy that his 98-page study that questioned the science behind global warming and called for the EPA to stop depending on reports from the United Nations, was ignored by his supervisor who refused to forward the report on because Carlin?s ?comments do not help the legal policy or case? for the EPA?s position on global warming.
Ironically, as detailed an earlier NewsBusters posting by the MRC’s Brent Baker, in late January of 2007 the broadcast network evening newscasts quickly hyped ?a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing meant to publicize a report from two far-left groups about how the Bush administration supposedly suppressed science about the dire threat of global warming.?
This caused Matt Lauer on NBC?s Today, to suggest that President Bush was ?hiding the end of the world,? and that, ?A controversy in Washington over what could literally be the end of the world as we know it.? Now that the tables are turned, the media?s bias coverage of environmental issues is even more apparent.
-sam
