Shorter Bayh: Anything that changes the status quo more than 1% is unacceptable. I don't want to govern, I just want my name in the news as much as possible and hopefully people will think that I'm actually doing something.

I get the feeling that these "moderate Democrats" are really moderate Republicans who had to register under "D" just to avoid a primary thumping by their crazy base.

At a certain point, Bayh and the Blue Dogs will simply have to decide whether they have the stomach to govern.

At some point these scum need to decide if they're Democrats. If we pick up the 6-7 Senate seats that Cornyn thinks we will, it should be time to tell Bayh and Nelson to go join the party they're really members of: the Republicans.

it is important to remember that a surprisingly large percentage of members of congress aren't very bright.

Is this the point where the ruling on EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases gets used to thwart the cowardice of Blue Dog Dems?

"I get the feeling that these "moderate Democrats" are really moderate Republicans who had to register under "D" just to avoid a primary thumping by their crazy base."

In fact, that's pretty much what is happening. As the GOP becomes more and more a hard-core conservative party based mainly in the South, centrists and moderate conservatives who once would have had a home there will instead migrate to the "big tent" Democratic party. We cheer about the shrinking of the Republican party, but the flip side will be a larger and more ideologically divided Democratic party. This isn't going away - it will get worse.

McGruber -- How about links to these well-researched peer-riviewed studies by reputable scientists who have revealed their funding?

From the desk of Evan Bayh:

As a centrist democrat, it is important that I consider my constituents regarding any pending or future legislation. Being from a conservative state with large coal strip mining business interests, I believe that cap-and-trade legislation would have a negative impact upon these corporations.

Anyone who states or implies that my position on this is because of the large contributions I receive from these corporations is just being a malicious liar.

With any legislation, I carefully consider the views of my constituents in forming my positions. Anyone who states or implies that my position on health care reform is tainted because my wife is on the board of directors of Wellpoint and two pharmaceutical corporations and three biotech corporations is just being a malicious liar.

I get the feeling that these "moderate Democrats" are really moderate Republicans who had to register under "D" just to avoid a primary thumping by their crazy base.

Evan Bayh's father was a genuine liberal Democrat. I have no idea why the son is such a douche.

Stabenow isn't a Republican - she's just from Michigan, and Michigan Democrats have generally seen it as their job to protect the auto industry.

Speaking of which - anyone know what Dingell's position on this bill is?

Many people are skeptical about man-made global warming for several reasons, including all the global warming alarmists not really doing anything to reduce their "carbon footprint."

That's not a skepticism based on actual science. Of course, wingnuts such as yourself are allergic to sound science.

Of course, several new studies have poked some holes in the whole man-made global warming theory, but you won't find those articles hitting the mainstream media.

So why don't you post them? I'm guessing it's because the "studies" are complete crap, and you know you'll have your ass handed to you yet again. Not that that would ever stop you from continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.

Bayh should vote with the democrats or get out of the party, he is there to do the work of the people, not protect his and his wife's riches.

Good point on Bayh's "constituents"--as far as I can tell, they consist of Bayh's wife and her employer, along with some other big corporate contributors.

Since the predictable global warming denier has shown up, a simple question: What is the argument against reducing carbon energy consumption?

All we are being asked to do to mitigate the greenhouse effect is to reduce carbon energy consumption. This is something we should do anyway for at least a dozen good reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, not the least of which is that there is a finite amount of these resources. Even if you think you are right and 97 percent of the world's scientists are wrong about global warming, I see no reason not to support energy conservation.

wrt mcgruber, i recently asked a friend who is an honest conservative (and therefore, not a global warming denialist) why it was that it had become such an article of faith on the right that global warming isn't an issue at all. he gave me a set of responses, one of which is applicable to mcgruber: that many right-wingers think that we "want" there to be a problem (presumably as a means of channeling our inner-anti-capitalist sensibilities).

McGruber wrote: "Of course, several new studies have poked some holes in the whole man-made global warming theory, but you won't find those articles hitting the mainstream media."

You are a deliberate liar. You knowingly, deliberately and intentionally lie in every single comment you post here.

I have said, and still believe, that the Blue Dogs will eventually constitute the nucleus of a New Party replacing the Federalist-ized Republicans. But right now, what I find fascinating is how small a constituency they represent.

There really are a lot of supporters of Palin-style craziness, or even Michelle Bachmann. There are people who rally to the banners of the Norquists -- not as many as he pretends -- and Sanfords. Limbaugh and Savage do have audiences for their vilenesses.

Equally there are a great number of Obama supporters who are pulling him to the left -- and I believe he welcomes them and hopes they will 'force' him into a position he wants to take anyway.

But there just isn't a real "Blue Dog" constituency out there. In their home states they may be liked -- though in most cases they were supported only because local Democrats believed a less conservative Democrat couldn't win. (In Bayh's case, his father's reputation has given him cover for ideas his father would haved rejected.)

But where is the support for their ideas? If a truly Progressive Democrat ran against Burr in NC, for example, he'd probably lose, but there would be support for him throughout the blogosphere.

But if a Shuler runs, as Steve suggests elsewhere, he may get support from Democrats interested in the Big 67, but what groups would support him for himself or his ideas?

You are a deliberate liar. You knowingly, deliberately and intentionally lie in every single comment you post here.
Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM

But yet, commenters keep talking to McGruber -- two or three on every thread. If we ignored him/her, s/he'd get tired and go pester another blog.

But, no....

It will end up another filibuster where Blue dogs can hide without making decisions for which they can be held accountable.

The issues are too important...have too many dire consequences for all this political game playing. Bayh and other senators kept on leashes by corporate lobbyists are the arms of tyranny...who obstruct the will of the majority using "senate rules" never approved by the people or by the constitution. We are sick of them and it is becoming increasingly intolerable.

The time for change is long overdue and it is becoming clearer that the entire country would be better suited without a senate altogether.

How can we progress as a nation when all our progressive legislation is watered down to the point of only slightly better than meaningless.

Of course. Here's one dealing with the Gulf Stream, the current that many global-warming alarmists believe is on the verge of shutting down, sending the earth into a mini-ice age (see: Day After Tomorrow or any of Art Bell's rants).

Fail, again. Changes in streams or currents in no way disproves the fact of global warming. Maybe contradicts what some people think the long term effects will be, but not the ultimate fact of global warming caused by human industrial activity.

McGruber: "Computer models trying to forecast global temperatures in the future, or what the global climate will look like in the near- or long-term future is a fool's errand."

You are a deliberate liar -- and you are grotesquely stupid and comically ignorant.

Perhaps if you were not so stupid and so ignorant, you would come up with better lies.

From the desk of Evan Bayh:

The attacks on my character represented in these comments are slanderous. I have always and will always provide representation for my constituents.

You may qualify as one of my constituents. If you do, I will be pleased to hear what your needs are. If you can provide 10's of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, you can be a constituent. If you can provide 100's of thousands of dollars of income to my family, you can be a constituent.

Uh, McGruber, once again your argument blows up in your face. Your link doesn't undermine global warming theory in the slightest.

The only mention of human-caused climate change is, "And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters."

It's saying that there's evidence that measuring climate signals from the deep ocean may be more difficult than first suspected.

Nothing at all what you are claiming. Obvious you need to take a few remedial reading courses, dumbass.

But yet, commenters keep talking to McGruber -- two or three on every thread.

Usually the same people.

Some of them aren't bright enough to figure out that his only goal is to completely shut down conversation. Others know it but can't prevent themselves from responding.

Good job, guys.

Ooo! An article from a Murdoch/Fox News publication written by an "adjunct professor of geology" without any references for any of it's claims!

Boom goes the dynamite, right in your face McGruber!

Ha! Ha! /Nelson Munce

Oh, those damned liberals and their damned liberal climate change alarmism!

Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a new study released by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals from all branches of the armed services.

The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,� explores ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

The CNA Corporation brought together eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change. CNAC writers and researchers compiled the report under the board's direction and review.

The report includes several formal findings:

* Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.

* Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.

* Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.

* Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

See, it's only those damned tree-hugging Al Gore worshipping liberals who believe any of this climate change stuff.

Just ask McGruber. That's what Rush Limbaugh told him. So he knows it's true.

McGruber wrote: "I'm wondering if anyone will 'peer review' the computer models used by global warming alarmists ..."

So you think that hasn't been done?

Like, hundreds of times?

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAW !!!

Please stop with these comments, it hurts to laugh so hard at your hilarious ignorance.

McGruber: "While you're nattering and fluttering about this article I linked to just to get you going, none of you are talking about Rick Boucher, Waxman-Markey, or what to do about Blue Dogs re climate change."

In other words, you are an asshole who is deliberately and maliciously trying to waste people's time with bullshit.

Your "contribution" to the discussion is about on the level of someone who barges into the middle of a serious conversation, makes some sloppy fart sounds, giggles, and runs away, pleased with himself for getting attention.

Can we *pleeze* stop feeding the radical-right memes that conservative, corporatist Dem's are "moderates" or "centrists"?
These are blatant lies; they are obviously neither. There's nothing "moderate" about refusing to take action on a threat to the entire planet -- a threat that is recognized as such by a majority of Americans. There's nothing "centrist" about opposing gov't spending and gov't actions that majorities or pluralities (depending on the specific issue) recognize as necessary to address the massive problems the country must now contend with (problems brought on us by the same people fomenting the lies) -- even when accepting that tax increases might be required to pay for such spending. (And, of course, so far the Obama administration's cutting taxes for far more people than he's planning on increasing them. Not that you'd know that from the mass media, who seem to be only marginally more helpful than Fox, if that, in this respect.)
Don't forget that no less an authority than Ari Fleischer said "Americans need to watch what they say." Can we at least start by not doing the Rethugs' jobs for them by furthering their lies?

And this is why you don't pre-compromise with people whose sole purpose in negotiation is to chip pieces off of your proposal, so they can go get their local papers and corporate sponsors to keep sucking up to them.

Side note about Landrieu: You'd think someone who's state is so close to, um, *water* level, with, um, a history of *flooding*, would actually give a fuck about the effects of climate change, but apparently, more important than the prospect of a natural disaster is the prospect of an electoral disaster called, "Fuck the environment, I could lose my senate seat!!!1!"

"So opponents of the proposed legislation have to ask themselves whether they're making the perfect the enemy of the good. I think they are."

Somewhat hypocritical, considering how much shouting Krugman did about the $789 billion stimulus bill being too small.

Actually, I sincerely hope that the wingnuts are right and that there is no real global warming crisis.

But we should reduce carbon energy consumption anyway! There is no argument against it.

McGruber wrote: "Then there is this: ..."

What there is, is your inability to distinguish between peer-reviewed science and some bullshit posted on a right-wing blog.

It's been a long, long time since we had regular visits to this site from such a pathologically dishonest, monumentally ignorant, and mind-bogglingly stupid Ditto-Head as yourself.

the whole thing is sooooooooooo stupid - a fossil fuel based economy that is. If the so-called capitalists really were capitalists instead of being plutocrats we would have been off fossil fuels decades ago - they're CRAP technology period - we've had far superior clean energy sustainable technology available for decades - far superior is every economic and social sense.

That neanderthal republican/conservative whack-packers and blue dog Vichy Dem ignoramuses can garner any attention, let alone block the transfer to clean technology is a complete embarrassment in the triumph of the stupid.
.