Discuss as:

Conserv. Blog Buzz: Hot and cold

From NBC's Kelly Paice
With the global climate summit underway in Copenhagen, GOP bloggers jump on the "Climategate" bandwagon analyzing two "hot" op-eds written today. Also, on a "cooler" note, one conservative addresses the potential growing divide among the GOP establishment and the conservative base. And health care is always on the radar...

National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg gives his response to today's New York Times op-ed written by Thomas Friedman regarding "Climategate." Goldberg particularly points out, "Friedman is still making the even-if-it's-a-hoax-it's-great argument." Friedman writes, "If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? ... In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent." Goldberg's response: "Again, this is a signal that Friedman -- like so many others -- really doesn't much care if the science is right or wrong. Because he thinks global warming is a useful Sorellian myth to drive the organization of our society and political economy in directions he favors. ... But in a near-blind panic, spending trillions and exporting much of our economy wholesale to China and India for the sake of a benign hoax is absurd." 

NRO's John J. Miller also pokes at Friedman's "'precautionary principle.'" Miller highlights Friedman's point that "there's a greater than 1-percent chance that our planet is in the midst of a human-made global-warming disaster. So [Friedman] wants to take action, which he likens to buying an insurance policy." Miller's analysis: "But the very same logic could be used against kneecap-and-trade and all of the other draconian schemes that the environmental left has concocted: There's a greater than 1-percent chance that their hubris will impoverish the world through strangling regulations and accomplish nothing in the face of a phony problem. "

As we mentioned earlier in First Read, GOP 12 spotlights Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed on the "Climategate" scandal and the "'politicized science'" behind it. Palin calls for the president to boycott the Copenhagen conference: "In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to 'restore science to its rightful place.' But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a 'deal.' Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people."

Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti gathers some of the liberal blogosphere blowback regarding Palin's op-ed -- yet Continetti reminds us, "This is America, folks. Best-selling authors write op-eds. That's what they do." In sticking up for Palin, he adds, "Moreover, Palin happens to have an extensive background in energy issues... Her opinions on the subject of energy are considered."

On RedState today, Leon H. Wolf writes, "In the wake of the Obama administration's brazen move earlier this week to bypass Congress and enact cap-and-trade via regulatory fiat, the Obama administration has now taken to actually threatening Congress to (further) harm the economy if Congress does not cover their backside by passing unwanted legislation." Wolf points to a FOX News article that reports, "The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a 'command-and-control' role over the process in way that could hurt business." Wolf concludes, "Apparently, the White House feels that now is a good time to brazenly threaten to do enormous economic damage to our already depressed economy for the sake of scoring cheap political points against Congress. What a disgrace."

Brewing GOP divide? RedState's Erick Erickson asks, "What are we told about conservatives by the Republican establishment?" His answer: "Let's see: they need to be seen and not heard, they are hurting us with independents, their philosophy is outmoded, they stand for nothing but 'no,' and if we move right the voters will reject us." Erickson goes on to counter such presumptions, stating that, in fact, "[a]s Republicans stood up to Obama, their polling among independents went up," and that "[m]ore voters already view themselves as conservative than liberal" -- just to point out a couple of his arguments. Erickson further highlights a recent example that furthers his point: "Among likely voters in South Carolina, Jim DeMint's unapologetic conservatism polls better than Lindsey Graham's accommodationist love letters to Obama." In conclusion, Erickson argues that conservatives over the GOP establishment are the wave of the future: "Who's message is resonating with the middle and attracting new voters to the party (growing the tent)? Conservatives."

On the health care front, Dan Perin at Red State analyzes Sen. Harry Reid's "Vapor Deal": "In a classic have-it-both-ways-moment, Senator Reid has been selling the media and the public the following story line: in a breakthrough deal we took out the public option, but it's not dead. ... Uh, huh. The deal that was supposed to buy off Senator Lieberman's opposition to any form of a public option, did not kill the public option. So, if you don't kill the public option, how do you get Senator Lieberman's vote?" Perin predicts that, per comments today, Sen. Lieberman is having none of this "vapor deal"; which, in turn, Perin suggests that in order to get the 60 votes needed to pass any deal in the Senate, "if you are a liberal, you will have to vote to kill the public option."

Continetti also weighs in on the agreement reached by the "Gang of 10" last night -- which now, per Continetti, may not include a public option after all. He calls for Dems to watch out for Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL): "In the past, [Burris] has threatened to filibuster a bill that does not include a public option, and he repeated his threat on Tuesday night." And he asks, what if the Burris threat isn't an empty one? Continetti points out, "[Burris] is beholden to no one. He is not running for a full term next year. For all we know, he may just be wacky enough to derail Harry Reid's health care bill if his demands are not met."