Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* The evidence continues to mount: People want a strong Federal response to the Gulf spill -- not just to the cleanup, but to the larger, underlying problems that caused it. Check out these striking numbers from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll:

The new Post-ABC poll reveals a widespread perception that poor federal regulation was at fault in the gulf spill. About 63 percent point a finger at inadequate enforcement of regulations, and 55 percent see an overall weak regulatory structure. Even more, 73 percent, blame BP and its drilling partners for the accident.

* And: Only one-fourth of Americans back expanding offshore drilling in the wake of the disaster.

* In the wake of those findings, the degree to which confusion and dysfunction over energy reform persist in the Senate remains nothing short of amazing.

* It's also pretty amazing that some Dem Senators will support a proposal to be introduced today by Lisa Murkowski that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions.

* Conversations we wish we'd overheard: Marc Ambinder reports that former SEIU chief Andy Stern called the White House, taking issue with their urinating on unions and telling them to knock it off.

* New SEIU president Mary Kay Henry, in an interview with Glenn Thrush, tells the White House to stuff it: "We'd do it again in a heartbeat."

* Offense is the best defense: The DNC is renewing its push to sell the health reform law with this new ad on national cable challenging the GOP to make repeal an issue in 2010 and extolling provisions such as the closing of the donut hole.

* Also: DNC chair Tim Kaine is set to do a press call today outlining plans to aggressively target Republicans who favor repeal in this fall's elections, the DNC says.

* After critics hammered Obama for not kicking BP Chief Tony Hayward's ass, Obama is now set to meet with Hayward face to face.

* Media Matters launches a campaign to deny Fox News Helen Thomas's White House press seat.

* Who woulda thunk it? In the wake of the primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln, Senate Dems are being more aggressively populist about financial reg reform.

* But who cares about the impact that primary challenge has had -- all that matters is who won and who lost, and the unions are still losers!

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  June 10, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Climate change , Health reform , Morning Plum , Political media , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Did labor just want to 'send a message' to Dems?

Comments

Bernie linked this Rolling Stones article yesterday.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

If all that is accurate, Salizar has to go and MMS needs to be gutted right away. I'm not sure if Salizar should stick around long enough to gut MMS or not.

Salizar seems to have failed the President on this.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 10, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

A couple other big things from last night...

KOS dropped R2000.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/06/daily_kos_dismi.php

Probably after that scathing Nate Silver analysis showing them 2nd to last behind Zogby internet polling which highlighted also what we know, that Rasmussen is an average C pollster.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 10, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Unlike many, I do not see the union v WH dynamic as a bad thing. I think it was/is inevitable. The union movement has been under sustained attack for many decades and it is simply the case that other competing interests (ie C of C et al) have institutionalized themselves in Washington. Sparks here seem bound to happen. The solution is to keep it up regardless of the flack but at the same time understanding why so much flack arises.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Morning, All:

"It's also pretty amazing that some Dem Senators will support a proposal to be introduced today by Lisa Murkowski that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions."

Guess who plans to jump ship and embarrass the President? Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanchie, joined by Mr. Coal, Jay Rockefeller. Just when will the EstDems wake up? These Republicrats are worse than useless; they are harmful to the party and to the country. But the Liberals are the f-ing retards.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

And, for a painful laugh, TPM linked this vid of a coffee spill at BP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 10, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"Internal investigations warned BP for years that the company had created a culture of disregard for safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways."
http://www.propublica.org/feature/years-of-internal-bp-probes-warned-that-neglect-could-lead-to-accidents

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Surprised you didn't mention the open mic Fiorina gaffe.

Slamming Boxers hair like she did seemed pretty elitist to anyone watching. And her calling Hannity a tough interview is odd considering he's one of the only interview Queen Sarah is willing to do because of the rub down she gets every time she gets on.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 10, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"Yet another scientist on the government-assembled group estimating flow rates has spoken up and voiced skepticism about BP’s claims.

Steve Wereley, a Purdue University engineering professor and a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, criticized BP for mischaracterizing how much oil it is capturing with its containment cap, according to The Associated Press"
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/scientists-criticize-bps-claims-about-how-much-oil-its-siphoned

But really, why shouldn't BP lie and minimize what they know are the negative facts on so many matters here? Don't they have an obligation to their corporation and its shareholders to increase profits and reduce losses? Isn't that the primary responsibility of this version of "personhood"?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Morning mike. Saw the coffee spill bit. It's good. Things are getting so frigging nuts that if it weren't for Stewart and Colbert, I would be a measurably crazier individual.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"Media Matters launches a campaign to deny Fox News Helen Thomas's White House press seat."

McClatchey is the only sensible choice, which obviously means that McClatchey has no chance whatsoever. And with CNN's Ed Henry -- who wouldn't know a legitimate line of inquiry if it crawled down his throat -- on the Board, Glenn Beck has a better shot than McClatchey does.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

"Who woulda thunk it? In the wake of the primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln, Senate Dems are being more aggressively populist about financial reg reform."

On that note, I saw Sue's comment to the same effect on one of yesterday's thread. I hope this hope is warranted but I remain highly skeptical.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

"What else is happening?"

The Gulf Oil Disaster is taking on international implications as the Brits are angry at how BP is being bashed. Lots of articles and commentary in the British press. Here's one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/10/us-bloodlust-bp-oil-spill

Can "Too Big To Fail" be far behind?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The Greeneing of SC...

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn-calls-alvin-greene-a-plant-hopes-for-investigation.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"But really, why shouldn't BP lie and minimize what they know are the negative facts on so many matters here? Don't they have an obligation to their corporation and its shareholders to increase profits and reduce losses? Isn't that the primary responsibility of this version of "personhood"?"

Absolutely correct, Bernie. Think of it this way: We design a robot that is programmed only to swing its fists. Then we act surprised and get angry when it swings its fists. Robots aren't people. Neither are business corporations. "It's my nature," says the scorpion as it stings its rescuer and they both drown.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama now meeting with Hayward?

I wasn't terribly critical of Obama toward the beginning of this fiasco, but his handling of it is becoming a farce.

Every day now seems to be focused on a new set of responses to whatever is in the political winds, reactions to the media, and backtracking.

One of the key aspects of his mishandling of the whole thing is the rush to get his "boot on the neck" of BP in a public way, having Holder ostentatiously swoop in and vow to prosecute BP (remarkable contrast to the cautious approach Holder takes in statements about terror arrestees), and responding to the media with all those wooden statements about anger and rage and ass-kicking, rather than exhibiting what was needed: a vigorous and intelligent focus on containment and cleanup.

Now, he has made a complete hash of it all. It doesn't look like he knows what he is trying to do but is helter skelter talking about kicking ass, cleaning up, doing photo ops with Gulf residents, chasing the latest media questions -- basically making it up on a daily and hourly basis.

It is all reaction. His lack of executive experience shows and it apparent how foolish people were to buy his argument that running his own campaign itself demostrated his executive fitness.

I saw an interesting story out there -- can't remember where -- about the admin's rejection of an offer of assistance from the Dutch, who have a lot of relevant expertise and equipment. Surprised I haven't seen it mentioned here.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

If the Democratic base sits out the general election in Arkansas, Lincoln is toast. The dynamics that led the Dems to postpone stripping out her tough derivatives regulations remain in play, only more so. She needs the anti-Wall Street vote even more than before.

Posted by: mike_griffin | June 10, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I have a couple of questions if anyone's interested that I haven't been able to find answers for. As the clean up, containment, and compensation dollars seem to be heading toward the stratosphere, there are two scenarios floating out there. One, BP will file bankruptcy within the month, or two, they will be snapped up by another oil giant.
I understand if they are bought a separate account for spill liability will be arranged but if they file for bankruptcy how do the spill costs or compensation awards figure into that?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Don't miss this wonderful interview with Helen Thomas. It's a real indictment of the Puppy Dog Press that we have in Washington DC (except Greg). Especially interesting was page three where she tells of her days covering Eisenhower and Kennedy. Just fascinating.
http://www.viceland.com/int/v17n6/htdocs/helen-thomas-517.php?page=1

A little tidbit to get you started:

"Yeah. It’s called the Body Watch. Once I started there, I could then belong to the White House Correspondents’ Association, whose dues were a munificent two dollars a year. But as a woman I couldn’t go to the one annual function of the Correspondents’ Association, which was a dinner in honor of the President of the United States. We few women covering the White House couldn’t go, so we protested. We went to Kennedy himself via Pierre Salinger, his press secretary. We said, “We don’t think the president should go to this dinner if we can’t go.” He agreed, and for the first time we were allowed to cover the dinner."

Posted by: TomBlue | June 10, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

I'm not real familiar with the ins and outs but I think the bottom line is that BP can largely escape civil liability, either through bankruptcy or by attritive litigation. But criminal fines and restitution will be much harder to evade. I fully expect criminal prosecutions here including against BP itself. It's largely question of whether the officers and directors are indicted. Either way, criminal prosecutions can get the money. Civil litigation, very questionable once BP starts playing hardball, which I foresee shortly with the Administration insisting that BP compensate the oil workers unemployed under the drilling moratorium.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

P.S., GO CELTICS!!!

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"The dynamics that led the Dems to postpone stripping out her tough derivatives regulations remain in play, only more so. She needs the anti-Wall Street vote even more than before."

But can and will the Dems cynically string this out until November just to help Blanchie? If so, they are bigger dopes than I already think.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

"Only one-fourth of Americans back expanding offshore drilling in the wake of the disaster."

We're all DFH's now!

Republicans were so quick to jump on polling of HCR. I wonder what they think of THIS!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

P.S. Go Lakers!!!!

wbgonne, then is there an argument for BP's US operations to be taken over do you think? Would that protect the people affected by the spill? Or are they really just screwed no matter what happens?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

lmslaveinca:
"One, BP will file bankruptcy within the month, or two, they will be snapped up by another oil giant."

First the bankruptcy, then assets will be scarfed on the cheap by the others.
I don't know how things are out on Planet California, but in Virginia an in Louisiana, BP's gasoline is retailing significantly higher than the other guys'.
This is how the Oil Patch plays "hardball business" with each other.
(And BTW, the BeePee spill has caused the execs at Chavez's CITGO to fall to their knees and thank their pagan Socialist Gods, since it deflects attention from them).

"I understand if they are bought a separate account for spill liability will be arranged but if they file for bankruptcy how do the spill costs or compensation awards figure into that?"

Good question. I imagine that there are regiments of attorneys girding their loins to have "billable hours" fistfights over this.

Look how long the litigation over the Exxon Valdez lasted.
CAREERS were made over that one oopsie-boo-boo.

(Just as a sidebar, the chief mate on my present ship was an AB on the Valdez. He was on the wheel on the watch above the watch that was on the bridge when she "touched bottom" on Bligh Reef.)

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"We're all DFH's now!"

Yeah Ethan, now I don't feel so alone!!!!!

Posted by: lmsinca | June 10, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

"Guess who plans to jump ship and embarrass the President? Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanchie, joined by Mr. Coal, Jay Rockefeller"

I get Nelson and Landrieu.

But JRock IS a liberal. He's just living in coal country denial. It really is indicative of how firm a grasp the coal cabal has on that state. It truly is pathetic and leads to the Massey's of the world having significant authority in the halls of Congress regardless of what party is in majority. What a joke.

I suggest everyone contact JRock today and let him know he should go with his Liberal sensibilities and change his mind.

Here's his contact info:

Phone: (202) 224-6472 (D.C. Office)

Email: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Other contact info and other offices:

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Slave Sargent:
"* And: Only one-fourth of Americans back expanding offshore drilling in the wake of the disaster."

I call BS. Americans are fully aware of what limiting offshore drilling will do to this economy. No everybody is a doctrinaire neo-luddite, y'know.

Neither is the Alleged Hawaiian. If and when this moonbat eco-pushback takes effect and gasoline and diesel fuel hits $10.00 a gallon, Obama knows full well that his legacy will be akin to that of Herbert Hoover's.

The Moratorium on Deepwater drilling is already soiling the "O"dministration as thorougjly as the Macondo well is splooging Dauphin Island.
People recognize that it isn't fair to fault every company because BeePee's Company Man and their executives wanted to be "cowboys".

You lot really are quite willing to lose the entire Gulf Coast, aren't you?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Canadian Man-bag:
"Things are getting so frigging nuts that if it weren't for Stewart and Colbert, I would be a measurably crazier individual."

That is very hard to conceptualize.

Is there any government estimate on the number of barrels of crazy that would leak out of the hole in SlaveBernie's head?

I know where we could pick him up a containment dome ball-cap fairly cheap...hardly even used.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"is there an argument for BP's US operations to be taken over do you think? Would that protect the people affected by the spill? Or are they really just screwed no matter what happens?"

Like the BilgeBoy says: once civil litigation gets underway, Katie bar the door. It will take years to sort it out. The criminal process is much quicker. The U.S. does have a great deal of leverage over "BP" in that BP needs (or really wants, anyway) access to U.S. deposits. But bottom line: This will not go well for the LA coast, at least in the near-term. And LA is simply prolonging its agony when its "political leaders" demand that drilling resume EVEN BEFORE THE OIL STOPS GUSHING OR WE FIND OUT JUST WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

LA would be far better served by making moves away from an oil-based economy. My guess is there would be great sympathy and support ($) for LA if it sets course for better education and a diversified economy. Many of the the otherwise unskilled LA oil workers are screwed. Bt even they will have plenty of work (if they want it) cleaning up for the next decade or so. By that time, the next generation can be steered into more promising futures.

That, however, is my suggestion, not the White House's plan or LA's current intention. It's a possible way out. We shall see.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

71% SAY REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES!

* Most Americans say regulate greenhouse gases *

In advance of an expected Senate vote today on a GOP plan to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows broad public support for the new oversight.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed back federal regulation of the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming. The idea also had strong majority support in polls last year.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/06/most_americans_say_regulate_gr.html

Call/contact your congresscritters (and those Dems on the fence) TODAY!

We MUST force the government to reject any and ALL attempts by big industry to gut EPA's authority to regulate GHGs.

Today is the day.

I just emailed Sen Rockefeller...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

stooge-b-gonne:
"LA would be far better served by making moves away from an oil-based economy."

I'm sure somebody tried unicorn farts, but the herd kept flying away.

"My guess is there would be great sympathy and support ($) for LA if it sets course for better education and a diversified economy."

Yep, you dummies really ARE prepared to say "bye-bye" electorally to the Gulf coast for a generation.

Paternalistic and chauvinistic much?

Why don;t you come on down with that attitude and try "educating" these Coonasses and Texicans?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

stooge-b-gonne:
"I fully expect criminal prosecutions here including against BP itself."

As do I.

"It's largely question of whether the officers and directors are indicted."

That all depends on if their Company Man, Vidrine, squeals.
I suspect that Mr. Vidrine may be in an oil well bore somewhere, or under a suicid3e watch.
Understandably, nobody has heard a peep from the guy.

"Either way, criminal prosecutions can get the money."

What money will be left after the criminal prosecution? You think these guys are going to pay their defense lawyers with their OWN money?

Don't. Think. So.

"Civil litigation, very questionable once BP starts playing hardball, which I foresee shortly with the Administration insisting that BP compensate the oil workers unemployed under the drilling moratorium."

Yep, the line for THAT particular gang-bang is already forming, and stretches right over the horizon.
There are people who worship trees and rocks wearing loin-cloths and paddling dugout canoes filing claims against Limey Awl/Url/Oy-yull.
'Tis TRULY a sight to see.

BeePee DOES have grounds to fight this though, since Salazar had no reasonable grounds to shut EVERYBODY down because BeePee stepped on its' own pipeline.

Nobody grounds the entire airline fleet because DELTA, (Don't Expect Luggage To Arrive), has a crash, do they?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Whast else is happening ?

BP heading towards the 'deep end' ?

"BP shares have continued to trade lower as attention turns to the possible impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on the UK's image in the US.

The oil giant's shares were 6% lower by lunchtime after earlier plunging 12%.

...

BP's shares, which are jointly listed on the New York stock exchange, plunged nearly 16% in US trading hours after London closed on Wednesday, on fears that President Obama would impose huge penalties on the company.

As a result, BP's UK share price opened at 345 pence on Thursday in London, down nearly 12% on yesterday's London close, and its lowest level since 1997.

The price has since recovered during London trading hours, and was trading at 365p in mid-afternoon trading.

The recovery during London hours has also been reflected in New York, where BP's US shares opened up 9% versus the previous US close.

However, the recent price moves mean the oil giant's share price has almost halved since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/business/10281079.stm

BP has the US by its short hairs either way.

(The formatting s..ite doesn't work here ?)

Posted by: amkeew | June 10, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

From the AP yesterday:

"Obama's salty comments broadcast on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday raised questions about his escalating anger and angst--are they real or calculated for political effect?"

It's trouble for Obama when even the AP starts questioning his sincerity.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100608/D9G7C5U00.html

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

All, new post skewering meme that labor only wanted to "send a message" to Dems:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/yes_labor_did_think_halter_cou.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 10, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

ScottC, what do you think of the results of the poll that says 71% of Americans want the EPA to regulate GHGs?

That includes 55% of REPUBLICANS who feel that way. 32% of whom feel STRONGLY about that.

And 69% of INDIES (52% of whom feel strongly).

Any take on that?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

@qb: Regarding Dutch help. I think you can blame both BP and the admin. "Dutch companies that manufacture the sweeping arm system first contacted BP officials April 23, three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion."

"Two Dutch companies are ready to offer assistance with the oil clean-up operation in the Gulf of Mexico. The firms, Coseq and Hebo FTE, are waiting for permission from the United States authorities to help deal with the oil pollution.

Their methods are not fully compatible with strict US environmental rules. The Dutch companies pump as much oil into their holds as possible. The left-over water, which still contains some oil residue, is pumped back in the sea. According to the US regulations, the water is too polluted to be returned to the sea.

"If you're not allowed to pump the water back into the sea, you can't collect anything like as much oil," explains Wierd Koops. He chairs the Dutch oil spill response organisation SRGH and has submitted a plan to the US authorities for tackling the disaster.

Mr Koops says the local US senator has already been won round to the Dutch approach. However, the admiral in charge of the oil spill disaster effort has yet to agree to it."

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/dutch-firms-offer-help-us-oil-spill

Blame can be shared by BP and the US govt:

http://www.neworleans.com/news/local-news/404199.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0601/BP-oil-spill-Will-the-sweeping-arm-system-from-the-Dutch-help

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

For Bernie:

Another example Obama not being cynical: lying about his own experts' recommendations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704575304575296782675625258.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

SBJ, any comments on the recent polling that I posted at 11:14am?

55% of REPUBLICANS feel that the government should regulate greenhouse gases to reduce global warming. 32% of whom feel STRONGLY about that.

Seems like the GOP political message against regulating GHGs/climate change is a HUGE FAIL. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@ethan: "SBJ, any comments on the recent polling that I posted at 11:14am?"

No.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Haha, sbj. Mmmmkay!

You guys are so intellectually honest. I love how both you and ScottC TOTALLY AVOID inconvenient facts and polls that don't go your way.

SO intellectually honest!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

like that health care ad

Posted by: SDJeff | June 10, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"what do you think of the results of the poll that says 71% of Americans want the EPA to regulate GHGs?"

The first thing I think is that the poll you refer to didn't have those results. The question asked people about regulation by the federal government, not the EPA. This is not an insignificant nitpick. Indeed, the entire purpose of Obama threatening industry with EPA regulation over carbon is so that it will be more amenable to the less arbitrary and dictatorial powers of cap and trade legislation. (For bernie: yet another example of Obama's not playing cynical political games

The second thing I think is that it is not surprising. After years of being propagandized over the effects of carbon in the atmosphere, it is no wonder that a non-specific question about regulating carbon would produce favorable (for regulation) results. I suspect the results would change significantly if specific regulations were presented along with the economic consequences of the regulations. For example, should people be asked "Would you be in favor of placing X regulations on industry if it resulted in Y" where Y= an increase in your home heating bill of 25%" or "an increase in gas prices of "15%" or "a rise in prices for virtually any good you may ever buy in your life."

In other words, I think the poll isn't a very useful or enlightening poll.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

I forgot to add one thing...I'm not much of one to go in for the argumentum ad populum in any event. I generally try to figure out what the right thing to do is without appealing to what "the people" think. "The people" tend to be wrong on an awful lot of things.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan: "You guys are so intellectually honest. I love how both you and ScottC TOTALLY AVOID inconvenient facts and polls that don't go your way."

You are hereby challenged to produce any comments of mine that discourage the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. I'll wait here...

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

ScottC, from the wapo link:

"""In the poll, Democrats and independents broadly support EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, with most strongly behind the new controls. More than half of Republicans also favor the new controls."""

So, your first point is shot to sh*t. Of COURSE they are referring to the EPA.

Your second point:

"it is no wonder that a non-specific question about regulating carbon would produce favorable (for regulation) results"

The question specifically says "should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming"... Not "carbon" but regulate GREENHOUSE GASES to "REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING." And speaking of propagandizing, every single mention of climate change out of the GOP is that it DOESN'T EXIST!!! And yet polling of self-identified GOPers suggests that the Republican Party's propaganda surrounding this issue has been a catastrophic failure. Based on these numbers, wouldn't you agree?

"I suspect the results would change significantly if specific regulations were presented along with the economic consequences"

I suspect the results would be even MORE in favor of regulation if specific regulations were presented along with data on PREMATURE MORTALITY and health impacts from carbon-based emissions. Don't you think? Why is money the only thing? What about the lives of everyday Americans? Aren't you PRO-LIFE?

"I'm not much of one to go in for the argumentum ad populum in any event"

So all those polls about HCR, they mean nothing to you? And the GOP's nonstop hyping of them just was bogus as I thought?

Cool.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj: "You are hereby challenged to produce any comments of mine that discourage the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. I'll wait here..."

I didn't ask you about previous comments. I asked you about your thoughts on this poll. Don't you find it amazing that a majority of REPUBLICANS want the federal govt to regulate GHG emissions? Anti-regulation, small govt, "climate change is a hoax" REPUBLICANS want more regulation on GHGs?! Don't you find that amazing given what we hear from the GOP every day from the likes of Inhofe, McConnell, Fiorina? I'll wait here...

Btw, ScottC...

From an ABC News article about this recent poll:

"In an ABC/Post poll in December, majorities supported greenhouse gas regulations even if it would raise Americans’ energy bills by $10 or even $25 a month."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/06/broad-public-backing-for-greenhouse-gas-regulation.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I would expect a large number of people to not even know what "greenhouse gasses" are, let alone that CO2 is naturally abundant and the manmade contribution infinitessimal.

Ethan said to Scott:

"So all those polls about HCR, they mean nothing to you? And the GOP's nonstop hyping of them just was bogus as I thought?"

Scott can speak for himself, but you are the one not being intellectually honest.

Polls can be viewed as significant or insignificant for several reasons. As a measure of truth or error, or of what sound policy would be, no, I would suggest they aren't a good guide -- Scott's ad popularum point. As a guide to politics, they obviously can be significant. And to the extent that one believes as a matter of justice or ethics in some form of popular sovereignty or democratic rule, they can be significant.

Your failure to recognize those differences is unfortunate, Ethan.

btw, I am still waiting for your answer to the repeatedly ignored question of how the domestic violence of an obscure GOP deputy WH counsel proves that conservatives have lost their minds. You ought not to be talking about anyone's intellectual integrity after having lobbed that nonsense grenade and then ignoring requests that you explain it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"So, your first point is shot to sh*t."

Not really. All you have done is demonstrate that the WaPo is conflating the two just as you are. The actual question refers to "the federal government", not the EPA.

"Not "carbon" but regulate GREENHOUSE GASES to "REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING." "

OK. Replace "carbon" in my post with "GHG".

"And speaking of propagandizing, every single mention of climate change out of the GOP is that it DOESN'T EXIST!!!"

This is simply false, and not just because of your hyperbole (are you sure you have actually even seen every single mention?). I realize that it is standard alarmist tactics to conflate opposition to alarmist policies with denial of "climate change", but intelligent people know that is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to win the argument without engaging in it.

"And yet polling of self-identified GOPers suggests that the Republican Party's propaganda surrounding this issue has been a catastrophic failure. Based on these numbers, wouldn't you agree?"

No doubt the alarmist propaganda has to date been more effective than those who would counter it. I will certainly grant you that.

"I suspect the results would be even MORE in favor of regulation if specific regulations were presented along with data on PREMATURE MORTALITY and health impacts from carbon-based emissions. Don't you think?"

Possibly, which simply shows that it is fairly easy to design poll questions to elicit certain responses, if that is what one wants to do.

"Why is money the only thing?"

The only thing in regards to what?

"Aren't you PRO-LIFE?"

In the traditional sense of the term, yes. But I'm guessing that is not what you had in mind.

"So all those polls about HCR, they mean nothing to you?"

As a matter of policy, that is correct. They mean absolutely nothing to me. My opposition to Obamacare would have remained the same whether it was supported by 90% or 10% of the population.

"And the GOP's nonstop hyping of them just was bogus as I thought?"

No. The GOP hyping them was the reasonable political strategy of a powerless party aiming to discourage the Dems from passing something the GOP didn't want passed. Once it was passed, it remains a reasonable political strategy in that it reminds voters that the Dems have an agenda that is not particularly well liked.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

QB:

"Polls can be viewed as significant or insignificant for several reasons. As a measure of truth or error, or of what sound policy would be, no, I would suggest they aren't a good guide -- Scott's ad popularum point"

So, like Scott C, you don't think the polling on HCR is of any value?

"I am still waiting for your answer to the repeatedly ignored question of how the domestic violence of an obscure GOP deputy WH counsel proves that conservatives have lost their minds"

It is, to me, just more evidence that conservatives, particularly partisan conservatives such as those who served under GWB, are lunatics who don't understand nor care about the laws of this country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "I didn't ask you about previous comments. I asked you about your thoughts on this poll."

No, what you did was imply that I was intellectually dishonest because I didn't answer a question you posed.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"So, like Scott C, you don't think the polling on HCR is of any value?"

How tedious.

"It is, to me, just more evidence that conservatives, particularly partisan conservatives such as those who served under GWB, are lunatics who don't understand nor care about the laws of this country."

How preposterous.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Not really. All you have done is demonstrate that the WaPo is conflating the two just as you are. The actual question refers to "the federal government", not the EPA."

The EPA is the federal government's mechanism that enforces environmental laws.

""And speaking of propagandizing, every single mention of climate change out of the GOP is that it DOESN'T EXIST!!!""

Show me one single recent quotation by a sitting Republican member of Congress where he or she states that climate change exists, is man-made, and is a threat to our country.

"No doubt the alarmist propaganda has to date been more effective than those who would counter it. I will certainly grant you that."

Why is that? Could it be that the messaging from the GOP is a total failure? Or is it that most people actually think that -- BASED ON THE SCIENCE -- climate change is real and a danger? What do you think? Is it the GOP's messaging that failed or that people believe the scientists? Or do you honestly think that the global scientific body is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to... to... to what? What would be the point of scientists coming together to promote a fraudulent theory? What would they stand to gain? You can't possibly believe that the global scientific body is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy, or do you?

"Possibly, which simply shows that it is fairly easy to design poll questions to elicit certain responses, if that is what one wants to do."

Sure it is. That's what tends to happen when you include FACTS and DATA in your polling questions. You get responses based on the facts and data in the questions. God forbid!

"The only thing in regards to what?"

Why is it that, to Republicans such as you, money and profit-making in business are THE ONLY measures of a policy's worth?

"it remains a reasonable political strategy in that it reminds voters that the Dems have an agenda that is not particularly well liked."

So, you think polling the public on policy issues is a waste of time. And yet political tactics using polling that is a waste of time is reasonable?

Thanks for admitting that the GOP has been a miserable failure in promoting its insane anti-climate change views and for admitting that their cynical political tactic of using HCR polling is a total waste of everyone's time.

We agree on those two points.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"No, what you did was imply that I was intellectually dishonest because I didn't answer a question you posed."

Haha!

Um, but before THAT, I asked you your thoughts. You could have ignored my question, but you didn't you flat-out declined to answer. That, to me, is intellectually dishonest. And THEN you suggested I waste my time combing through your comments looking for a post that doesn't exist.

Truly, SBJ, you are THE absolute pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"""And speaking of propagandizing, every single mention of climate change out of the GOP is that it DOESN'T EXIST!!!""

Show me one single recent quotation by a sitting Republican member of Congress where he or she states that climate change exists, is man-made, and is a threat to our country."

LOL

What a brilliant goal-post move!

And what a joke. Your efforts at argument are risible. Perhaps Scott has more patience with such nonsense than me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"How tedious."

Yes, it is tedious how you constantly move the goalposts.

"How preposterous."

Why? I have seen no evidence that the partisan GOPers honestly care about laws.

"What a brilliant goal-post move! "

Why? Am I wrong? I stand by my statement that every single comment out of the GOP on climate change is that it doesn't exist. Unless you or someone else proves otherwise.

"Your efforts at argument are risible."

But your one-sentence miasmas are worthy arguments? Hahaha! Even YOU can do better than that. The quality of your arguments have fallen off substantially the last couple of weeks or months. I hope everything's okay in QB world.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

See if you can spot the difference:

Ethan@12:29: "every single mention of climate change out of the GOP is that it DOESN'T EXIST!!!"

Ethan@2:20: "Show me one single recent quotation by a sitting Republican member of Congress where he or she states that climate change exists, is man-made, and is a threat to our country."

BTW, you'll have to move the goalposts further still if you want to avoid looking like a total fool. This, from the very first sentence of a John McCain op-ed, February 2007 (written jointly with every progressives favorite independent, Joe Lieberman):

"There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/13/the_turning_point_on_global_warming/

"Why is that?"

People seem to have a natural affinity for Malthusian disaster scenarios. Not sure why.

"Or is it that most people actually think that -- BASED ON THE SCIENCE -- climate change is real and a danger?"

Considering that the vast majority of people haven't even seen, much less understood, the science, it seems highly unlikely that this is true.

"Is it the GOP's messaging that failed or that people believe the scientists?"

No doubt a lot of people believe what they hear some scientists have claimed.

"What would be the point of scientists coming together to promote a fraudulent theory? What would they stand to gain?"

Ignoring the notion of conspiracy, some people would have a lot to gain from perpetuating alarmism over "climate change". Money, personal prestige, avoidance of ostracism, a job, avoidance of embarrassment.

"Why is it that, to Republicans such as you, money and profit-making in business are THE ONLY measures of a policy's worth?"

They aren't. For instance, I oppose many proposed environmental policies even though, if implemented, they will make certain companies (and by implications many individuals) very rich.

"So, you think polling the public on policy issues is a waste of time."

I didn't say that. I suggested that it was a waste of my time to consider such polls when considering whether to support a given policy. (Are you being purposely dense, or can't you help it?)

"We agree on those two points."

Are you trying to impress someone besides yourself with this kind of idiocy?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it."

No, that wasn't John McCain, that was Mavericky McCain, John's intelligent brother.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to putting your foot in your mouth, Ethan tops even Lowden!

Posted by: sbj3 | June 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company