In anticipation of the imminent Senate vote on the industry assassination bill, widely known as cap-and-trade, I contacted my state’s senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. Their response was far from definitive.
by Michael Naragon
Saxby Chambliss returned to the Senate after winning a hotly contested election in which many Georgia conservatives, disgusted with his votes for the bailouts and stimulus and his stance against domestic drilling, voted for the Libertarian candidate, Allen Buckley. The number of votes acquired by Buckley did not allow Chambliss to gain a majority and forced a runoff with his Democrat challenger. Chambliss eventually won the runoff, helped a great deal by support from talk radio and national Republican leaders who were all apparently willing to sacrifice their conservative principles to save the Senate from a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. And we see now how well that has worked.
Many of you have undoubtedly contacted your senators on this issue already. I encourage you to continue doing so, especially if you received an impotent, politically-safe response like this, received from Chambliss on July 7:
Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change. I appreciate hearing from you.
Climate change is an important issue that deserves serious and thorough debate. The current legislative proposals to address climate change would have a dramatic effect on our economy and the way we all live.
The Senate is considering climate change legislation that would affect our nation for many years to come. Any system that is created to address this issue must be understandable to taxpayers, including consumers and small businesses. Citizens need to be aware of the effects of any proposal and how it will impact them.
As Congress continues the debate on climate change, I will focus on several main principles. Climate change legislation should encourage economic growth and protect American jobs. It also must be capable of adjusting to changing scientific findings, economic conditions, and the actions of other countries.
We should continue to focus on science-based technologies to become more energy efficient and secure our energy future in the midst of our increasing energy demands. To do this in an environmentally friendly way, we must continue to develop and use alternative energy sources including nuclear energy.
As climate change legislation is debated in the Senate, I will examine it in accordance with these principles and I will keep your comments in mind.
Let’s break it down, shall we? (Isakson’s response was eerily similar, so I won’t bore you with his words here.)
“I appreciate hearing from you.” This is very polite. The senator could also have included as his next sentence: “I hope that you appreciate my patronizing letters as I ignore your counsel.”
The biggest problem I have with the senator’s response is his immediate acceptance of the idea of climate change, by which he implies that such climate change is man-made, despite the growing consensus among scientists that the entire movement has been a myth as temperatures have leveled since 2001 and have begun to drop.
Chambliss then begins the real politispeak. “Citizens need to be aware of the effects of any proposal…” If I were unaware, would I be writing to the senator? As a teacher, this response resembles some of the freshman essays I receive throughout the year. High school students are adept at writing paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and Chambliss’ staff has apparently retained this skill. The senator then addresses his “main principles,” which are meaningless since they could be used either for or against the cap-and-tax.
The senator ends the letter with the usual “energy independence” and “environmentally friendly” jibber-jabber that is spewed by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most humorous line of the entire response is when he writes that he will look at any cap-and-tax legislation with the “principles” he has just laid out. The senator surely knows what principles are, and he must know that he has given little in the way of principled discussion in this letter. What he has done is attempt to protect himself, regardless of how he votes on this industry killer.
Many conservatives have expressed grave frustration with the Republican party in recent years. The type of non-committal attitude expressed by Chambliss typifies the reason for this frustration. Rather than take a stand either way, the senator attempts to play to either ideological position in six small paragraphs.
The Left and their accomplices in the State media have gleefully reported that the Republican party is dead or dying, leaderless and aimless. If a majority of national Republicans continue to play Washington politics as Sen. Chambliss has done here, continue to pat us on the head and smile while we beg them to stop our economic death spiral, perhaps the liberals are right for once.
I swear, I don’t know why I wasted my time voting for this moron. I won’t do it next time.
Don’t forget Isakson and Chambliss were also part of the Senate’s Gang of whatever that proposed the Shamnesty legislation.
I did not vote for Chambliss in the runoff, in fact for once I didn’t vote at all since Jim Martin, the Democrat candidate was just another of the MoveOn type liberals and Chambliss already had his 3 strikes.
Oh, I hadn’t forgotten… Chambliss also made the deal about offshore drilling after the House had worked so hard to keep domestic drilling on the table, totally undercutting their efforts.
I didn’t vote in the runoff either, since it didn’t appear to matter which liberal went to Washington.
Pingback: Fire Saxby Chambliss » Blog Archive » Saxby Responds to Cap-and-Trade