True North

El Tinklenberg's campaign has a blog for this fall's campaign. One of the first things that stood out for me was the caption in the header:

Rebuilding Optimism In America

That slogan is followed by a number of posts going negative on Michele Bachmann. I'd expect that because Tinklenberg can't win without going negative. The post currently at the top of his blog is about global warming. Here's Tinklenberg's take on global warming:

The evidence is in and speaks overwhelmingly; global climate change is real. It's the biggest long-term challenge our nation and world face. Those who continue to deny its reality gamble with our children's and grandchildren's futures. We need to reduce America's dependence on the coal and petroleum products that are the primary causes of global warming. Alternatives can be made available in bio-derived, nuclear, solar, and wind energy.

This is not just an environmental issue. We need to get away from petroleum-based fuels in order to escape the natural security threat of being held captive to hostile or unstable regimes that control our primary sources of energy. Our economy also demands that we minimize dependence upon foreign sources of energy, for the largest single contributor to our current imbalance of trade is the massive wealth we squander on oil. What's more, the bill for gas to fuel the family car is one of the biggest problems for American families' rising cost of living.

These problems are long-range and complex. No immediate or simple remedies are available that will correct the current situation, but prompt action by our nation is essential.

That's typical liberal gibberish. It's like someone winds up the liberal doll and it spits out the same answer time after time after time. Several things are noteworthy in this milquetoast answer, specifically:

• The politician declares that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees with them either hates clean air or is an idiot.
• The politician suggests that global warming is caused by humans and must be fixed by humans.
• The politician doesn't offer proof that his declarations are valid.
• The politician declares that global warming, not terrorism, is "the biggest long-term challenge our nation and world face" without explaining why he believes that.

It's obvious why liberals follow the same script. They can't afford not to sing from that hymnal. If they didn't, the environmentalists' campaign contributions would evaporate . If you've looked recently at Tinklenberg's FEC report, you'd see by his anemic fundraising totals that he can't afford to alienate anyone.

The undeniable fact is that we won't conserve our way out of this gas crisis. We won't alternative our way out of it either. Tinklenberg's policy will lead to higher gas prices. That isn't a worthwhile policy. That policy will just lead to a shrinking economy.

That's what Kyoto was all about. It wasn't about lowering greenhouse gases as advertised. If Kyoto was about lowering greenhouse gases, then China and India wouldn't have gotten exemptions from it.

It's time that Mr. Tinklenberg produce proof that climate change is manmade.

Guess what makes it into Mr. Tinklenberg's policies too:

Substantial increases in funding for mass transit and highway improvements to enhance transportation efficiency and reduce gridlock on our streets and highways.

A Democrat who wants massive funding increases for transit? Who would've thunk it? That isn't his only policy perscription. No Democrat's energy policy is complete without this:

We need a Manhattan Project for Energy Independence. This can easily be funded by means of a windfall tax upon excess earnings of Big Oil. America is ready once again to be challenged to greatness in meeting a great need.

What did the oil companies do to warrant the Democrats' incessant complaining about them? Why do they get a bullseye painted on them? Congress has more to do with high gas prices than do the oil companies. We wouldn't have this problem if Congress hadn't put huge oil reserves off limits to satisfy their environmentalist allies. That's what forced the high prices.

Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't just stop there. Bad policy isn't enough with Mr. Tinklenberg. Knowing that he has to go negative to have any chance at beating Michele Bachmann, that's what he does in this post:

One statement is an outright lie, the other just foolishness. It's a bald-faced lie to say that Michele Bachmann doesn't support "responsible conservation policies." It's pure foolishness to say that Michele Bachmann supports the "unsustainable use of petroleum products." Which advocacy group did he get that from? What proof does Mr. Tinklenberg have that the current use of petroleum products is unsustainable?

WAKE UP MR. TINKLENBERG!!! There's over a trillion barrels of shale oil waiting to be tapped in the Mountain West. That's before we start talking about the OCS or ANWR.

To say that we can't sustain our current use of oil is fear mongering. The statistics simply don't support that assertion.

Let's make something else abundantly clear: environmentalists say that opening up ANWR, the OCS and the Mountain West won't give us much in terms of oil. I've even heard idiots saying that there's only six months of oil in ANWR. That's pure bullshit.

It's insulting to listen to that crap. Why would the oil companies care about opening up these areas if it wasn't worth their while? Do you really think that these supposedly greedy companies would spend millions lobbying Congress for a tiny drop of oil?

Mr. Tinklenberg isn't a leader. He's a lobbyist's shill. If he was a leader, he wouldn't mindlessly say the unsubstantiated things that he's saying.

Comments welcome at LFR.