Tag Archive for 'Republican'

Rep. Jeff Lewis (R-15), Chairman House Energy Committee

Jeff Lewis is Chairmen of the House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee. While the committee has a broad range of jurisdiction, this interview focused on energy. You may have heard of the ethanol plants being built in Georgia. The one in Camilla uses corn and the one in Treutlen County uses wood chips (pine trees). According to Lewis, it takes about 1 to 1.5 gallons of energy to produce one gallon of ethanol using corn. Wood chips take less energy to produce the same gallon of ethanol.

Georgia has more pine trees than any other state in the Union. If wood chips can be utiltized to produce ethanol efficiently, such plants could represent an economic boost to the state in the future.

When it comes to generating electricity, it is anticipated that in the next 10 to 15 years Georgia will need another 22 to 25 thousand additional megawatts of electricty per day. That could mean as many as twenty new power plants. That’s a lot of power plants! You may not realize it, but new power plants are being built all the time. While the Public Service Commission has responsibility to approve the construction of a new plant, the Energy Committee has the responsibility to set the guidelines by which new plants are considered and authorized.

You will not believe the number of power plants in Georgia, and most of them are not owned by Georgia Power. Many companies and cities apparently generate some amount of electricity.

The decision that is on the horizen is whether or not to change that focus from coal or natural gas plants to nuclear plants. A nuclear plant generates 1000 to 1500 megawatts of electricity. It can take 12 to 15 years to plan, permit and build a nuclear plant. The Energy Committee could increase electricity production in Georgia by shortening the time required to permit a new plant.

I get the impression from Jeff that nuclear power is coming, it is just a matter of when. The “Three Mile Island” incident in 1979 resulted in a virtual moratorium in the construction of nuclear generating plants. According to Jeff, nuclear power is the most efficient and cost effective energy source. He believes the issue of disposing of nuclear waste is being dealt with.

While the US obtains almost 20% of its electricity from nuclear power, Europe relies heavily on nuclear energy: France 80%, Italy and Spain 60%, and England 50%. Here’s a list of European countries with nuclear power plants.

Jeff also mentioned a new generating plant to be located in Clay County, which will generate 250 megawatts by burning “biomass,” such as peanut shells and pecan hulls. The Committee approved a sales tax exemption for the plant so that it did not have to pay sales tax on the raw products it buys to generate electricity. This incentive was necessary to convince the plant to locate in Georgia, rather than Florida or Alabama who were also competing to get it.

I also asked Jeff about comments attributed to him when the Committee met in August in which he expressed doubts as to whether or not global warming is real, and if real, to what extent do humans contribute to or cause it. Jeff took a lot of heat for those comments.

Like a lot of people, I believe global warming is real and that human generated greenhouse gases contribute to it, but the truth is, my opinion means absolutely nothing.

The concern is that while other states have passed laws setting goals for energy efficiency and emission standards, Jeff and other Georgia legislators apparently don’t believe that such measures are necessary. Jeff doesn’t want to do anything to handicap the state’s economy, when its competitors around the globe may not be doing likewise. He says that he and other legislators are educating themselves so that if and when they have to make substantive decisions for or against global warming, they can make the best decision for Georgia.

I think that global warming is an issue that is too big for individual states to resolve. This issue requires and demands leadership on a national scale. Without that kind of leadership, there will only be a continued unresolved controversy. It is just like the water problem we are now dealing with in Georgia. State leaders have known this problem was approaching for years and did nothing, primarily because to do something is to limit growth or spend a lot of money. Just like water, states will never effectively deal with the economic aspects of global warming until some crisis in the air or water quality exists. Just like water, that could be too late.

Jeff indicated that the Committee is not presently expected to consider any specific legislation during the ‘08 session.

 
 Rep. Jeff Lewis, (R-15), Chairman, House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee [30:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (238)

Joe Seehusen, Deputy Campaign Manager, Tells Me About Ron Paul!

He raised $4 million in campaign contributions in one day. He’s a Republican Congressman from Texas, but he would end the Iraq War quicker than any Democrat–or Republican. He carries a copy of the US Constitution in his pocket. He answers questions whether you like it or not. He thinks most of the federal agencies are illegal and should be abolished. He believes the States ought to have to fix their own problems, keep their own money and be responsible to their own people, not beholden to the money dispensers in Washington. His concept of government is not what we were taught in 10th grade civics. It is different, maybe even radical, and Ron Paul scares a lot of people because if he were elected and had his way, two things would happen: (1) all those power brokers in and out of government would experience what many average Americans experience everyday: unemployment and uncertainty about paying the mortgage by the 10th of the month, and (2) “we the people” would have to grow up and govern ourselves on a local level and could no longer blame Washington for our problems.

Or at least that is what Joe Seehusen, Deputy Campaign Manager for Ron Paul for President, told me. My thanks to Joe for the interview. While I won’t hold Ron Paul personally responsible for everything and anything Joe said, as Deputy Campaign Manager, I assume his answers reflect generally the attitude and approach of Ron Paul. For that reason, I will talk about Ron Paul, not Joe. Sorry, Joe, but I guess that just goes with the job.

While Ron Paul is elected as a Republican, he is a Libertarian if he is anything. And I don’t say that with any degree of criticism. Trained as an obstetrician, he is known as “Dr. No” because of his consistent votes against things like the “Bridge to NoWhere.”

Ron Paul (and Joe) believes in the Constitution like the religious right believes in the Bible. He is dead serious about restoring the power to the States, and in doing so, gutting the federal government. The problem with Ron Paul is he thinks we Americans are capable of governing ourselves, that instead of griping and moaning and being thankful there is someone else to blame, we could actually deal with most of our problems on a state by state basis.

While Ron Paul has recently gotten a boost, he is still in single digits in the polls. I don’t think he has a chance to win the election, but in many ways I wish he did. If he were in the lead, maybe it would prove to us that we really do want a candidate to tell us the truth, not just what we want to hear.

Take campaign finance. Most of us believe there is too much money in politics. We don’t like the power that lobbyists exert over the people that are supposed to be doing what is best for us. Most of us would probably support laws that restrict the influence of money. Ron Paul, however, thinks differently, radically different. I would say even refreshingly different. Joe would not represent himself as speaking for Ron Paul on this issue, so I have to say this is what Joe thought the answer to the problem is. The answer is to take away the power of the politicians to give the lobbyist what they want. If there are no federal agencies regulating business activities, if Congress isn’t passing budgets to spend trillions of our dollars, the things that lobbyist go to Washington for won’t exist. Now, that is a radically different way to look at the problem.

I feel about Ron Paul like I feel about ending the war in Iraq. I am ready to end the war tomorrow. I agree that I don’t know what would happen as the result of an immediate pullout, but I am willing to deal with whatever that brings rather than staying there another day. I truly wish we, as a nation, had the courage to elect someone like Ron Paul. I think he scares us because his ideas are radical, they are not what we are accustomed to. But, I know we would survive, and we just might be the better for it.

And why could Ron Paul raise $4 million in one day? Because there are a lot of people in this country that are not opposed to revolution, who are not married to the old ideas about government and how it should be run. They are growing in numbers and impatience. It is just a matter of time. It may be 2008. It may be 2012.

We may not elect Ron Paul next year, but I am confident that America is lost unless and until we grasp a radical new concept of government. That new concept may not be 100% Ron Paul or 100% Democrat or 100% Republican, but whatever it is, we need it to survive.

 
 Joe Seehusen, Deputy Campaign Manager, Ron Paul for President [30:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (146)

Erickson Mixes It Up!

Erick just returned from a Values Voters Summit in DC last weekend. I didn’t know that when I asked for the interview, but it did prompt a question or two. Like, does the religious right have the influence in politics that it had 4 years ago? The answer is interesting.

The first thing Erick told me was that some Republicans are mad at him for getting Democrats elected. That’s good! We need more bipartisanship. I assume Erick was referring to his support of Robert Reichert, a Democrat, in the mayoral race in Macon. Believe it or not, I worked for Robert’s law firm in 1979-1981 when his father was the Senior Partner–before Robert went to law school even.

Fred Thompson: Fred made a better non-candidate than candidate. Erick’s information is that the Thompson campaign is in the “play it safe mode.”

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee was a close second to Romney in the Values Voters’ straw poll. According to Erick, many of the Republicans who are focused on value issues are not happy with Thompson and are turning to Huckabee. However, Huckabee scares the business community to death because of his fiscal policies.

The 2008 election may determine whether or not the grand coalition put together by Ronald Reagan of business and religious interests can survive the ideological failures of the Bush administration. According to Erick, the fiscal conservatives (I guess the ones that are tired of deficit spending to finance the Iraq War rather than the ones who want tax cuts.) are ready to jump from the GOP and support Hillary. Now that’s a thought to ponder!

Apparently, the business interests believe the social conservatives have gotten more for their dollar since 2000. As Erick says, the fiscal conservatives got the tax cuts, and the social guys got everything else. I am not sure two Supreme Court appointments, a partial birth abortion ban and a stem cell veto are enough to represent everything else.

Another interesting thing is Erick’s statement that the conservative right is shifting its focus from abortion to gay rights, particularly gay marriage. Since abortions are decreasing and polls suggest people are less likely to support a total ban on abortion, gay rights and gay marriage are the new frontier.

Erick suggests that while Christian leaders, like Chuck Colson and James Dobson, don’t necessarily agree with the shift in focus, there is a growing appreciation within the Christian community that legislating morals may not be a good thing, particularly if you cease to be the party in power. While legislating morals is a dangerous practice, I am not sure I can see this shift in Georgia.

Erick thinks that while Christian influence on a national level is decreasing, it is still strong on the state level.

We discussed briefly the proposed constitutional amendment to define life that may come to a vote in the 2008 legislature. Erick has seen the definition of “life,” which apparently says that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. (Is death by execution a “natural” death?) The interesting thing is that Erick says the National Right to Life and Americans United for Life oppose the Georgia amendment. The consensus is that it is unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayers’ money to even put it on the ballot. Now, does anyone want to bet whether or not they (the Republican leaders of Georgia) go ahead and waste out time and money?

Rudy Giuliani: I had never heard there was an “Italian vote,” but Erick says there is a big one and it could make the difference if the final match is Hillary versus Giuliani. The Italian vote generally splits 55/45 Democrat, but with Rudy it splits 85/15 Rudy. If the final duel is between two New Yorkers, Erick says Hillary will have a harder time in the South than Giuliani because she has to also overcome the “woman” factor. Maybe, maybe not.

And what issues will the 2008 election turn on? I wasn’t surprised to hear that the usual domestic issues from healthcare to the deficit would be significant, but I almost fell over when Erick told me that big business CEOs were now primarily supporting Democratic candidates because they want big government to take some of the big issues off their shoulders, such as health care. Make it a government program! Who cares, just get it off the bottom line of the profit and loss statement. I guess that makes sense, but I just don’t see the CEO of Walmart as a Democrat.

Opposing the Democratic CEOs are the Republican Entrepreneurs, those who still think the private sector can deal with most of these problems. What problems? I guess like Blackwater solving the problem of not enough troops on the ground.

I guess only time will tell if Erick’s observations about trends prove correct, but it is always a pleasure to get his viewpoint. We did agree on one thing: No one wants another Bush!

 
 Erick Erickson, Republican Commentator [31:14m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (270)

Erickson on the War: An Endeavor We Needed to Take!

I always enjoy talking with Erick Erickson, even though we differ on some, maybe many, things. I think one reason is that Erick is not a right-winger, but more of a libertarian-a virtual Democrat!

More importantly, Erick does disagree with his party on certain issues and policies. I think all Americans, specifically our elected politicians, should disagree with their party on something. Had such independence of thought existed in Washington for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, we probably wouldn’t be in Iraq today and Congress wouldn’t have an approval rating in the twenties!

However, when it comes to the War in Iraq, I just don’t understand how someone as smart as Erick still supports a failed policy, much less believes it was a good idea in the beginning. We knew, Cheney knew, Bush’s father knew, everyone knew in the first Iraq War not to go to Baghdad. Nothing changed that justified jumping into that tar pit in 2003. Face it, we have made a mess in Iraq. You can say the surge succeeded, but who cares? This isn’t about a 6 month effort! This is about year after year in Iraq. Decades in Iraq. Life after America life. Bush won’t leave because he is incapable of admitting he was wrong–from the beginning. As for me, I am not willing to pay the cost of Bush’s ignorance and Cheney’s conniving another single day.

The outcome is always going to be the same: When we leave, hell will break loose in Iraq. The factions in Iraq want civil war or they don’t. All we did by eliminating Saddam, was make it possible, indeed imperative, that the people of Iraq (the good, bad and ugly tribal powers and religious factions) make a decision as to whether or not they want to build a country or destroy themselves. They might as well make that decision tomorrow. Postponing that decision is not worth one more American life. Warning: When all this proves to be true, I will say “I told you so!”

Erick also comments on Fred Thompson’s candidacy. He calls Thompson a “leave me the heck alone” Republican. Fred is definitely Eric’s preference for the No. 1 job. However, according to Erick, Rudy has an advantage in that the guy ahead in the polls and in the money at this point in the campaign is historically the winner of the nomination.

Believe it or not, Erick likes Joe Biden on the Democratic side. But he still thinks Hillary will be the nominee, historically speaking, and that a Democrat will be elected.

I still support John Edwards.

On the Speaker’s property tax reform proposal, Erick isn’t particularly opposed to doing away with the property tax, he just doesn’t trust the people at the state level to handle the money fairly. He doesn’t think Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle will end up supporting the Speaker’s tax reform proposal.

And finally, Erick and I did find agreement on immigration. Build the fence and enforce the law! According to Erick, it is mainly a matter of votes, Hispanic votes. I think it is a matter of money: cheap labor.

Last but not least, we both agree that this new presidential primary schedule is simply nuts. I think America would be well served if it returned to the kind of politics where the party nominee was actually chosen at the convention, not 5 months before.

 
 Eric Erickson, Republican Strategist and Blogger [26:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (147)

The Shelbinator on Romney!

The Shelbinator’s video post on Mitt Romney’s recent visit to Atlanta, via the Varsity, is worth a look.

I enjoyed the comments by the Shelbinator himself, interspersed with Romney’s stump speech, not because they were an expose’ on Romney, but because they demonstrate how void of meaning most political campaigning really is. I am sure that the same kind of criticism could be leveled at just about any politician and his campaign speeches, Democrat of Republican.

Would we be better citizens and voters if we all constructed this kind of video in our brains when politicians talk? My point is not that politicians talk nonsense, although many and most of them do and all of them do at times. My point is that, sadly, their nonsense satisfies us. We prefer the sound bites to real discussions of real issues. We pick the guy we like, and stick with him through thick and thin and war and deficits and only after 5 or 6 years do we ask ourselves: “Why didn’t he know who the president of that country was?”

Interview with Drew Westen, Professor of Psychology at Emory and Author of “The Political Brain”

Drew Westin has written a book that gets the blood flowing and the neurons firing. With a slightly partisan slant, he identifies why the Democrats have not won presidential elections and what they ought to do to improve their chances. If you think you have been down this road before, I assure you, you haven’t.

This is not a rehash of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” or “Don’t Think of an Elephant.” This is different. I have read them all, including Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason” and come away wondering how many new words and phrases do Democrats have to dream up to win the hearts and minds of voters. I mean if that is what a Democrat has to do, I am not sure the game is worth it. I do have my pride, you know.

Thanks to Westen, I don’t have to worry about dreaming up words and playing games. I am about half-way through the book, but it appears the good news that Westin wants to impart is that sound bites and cute phrases are not the key. The key: Just speak plainly and tell the truth! How many times did we cringe when Kerry gave an explanation that was long enough to bore or confuse a Nobel laureate while his opponent tripped on his shoe string and still made the play.

Westen suggests that at least one reason Democratic candidates can’t speak directly and to the point is they are scared of being misunderstood. Who cares? The people that are going to misunderstand you are going to misunderstand you anyway. That is why they are people.

Westen analyzes political ads, debate answers and a lot of other political fodder to demonstrate how the medium appeals either to our reason or our emotions. According to Westen, Democrats love to appeal to the reasoning power of the electorate. Quote facts, prove the point and they will follow you all the way to the circle for the runner-up!

How I don’t know, but Republicans have somehow learned to appeal to emotions. The way the brain is wired, emotion always trumps reason. That is why poor people vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, because they vote based on an emotional component in politics (anti-abortion). You can appeal to their reason all you want, but you will lose.

It is an intriguing discussion of the interplay between our emotions and our power of reason, when seen in the context of how and why our brain actually responds to stimuli.

The point for political candidates: Learn how to be emotional, tell it like it is with conviction and faux pas will not matter. Fight for what you believe and don’t let fear of a misstatement convey the a message of weakness.

Reminds me of Give ‘em hell, Harry!

 
 Drew Westen, "The Political Brain" [28:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (179)

History Repeats Itself: Welcome Back FDR!

A few weeks ago, Jason Pye, the Libertarian, and I were swapping observations about politics. I don’t remember the details but he asked me to read a book: “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression” by Jim Powell. I think I asked him to read Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason.” Well, Jason, it was a great read!

I think it pretty clear that Powell did not write the book as an objective history. He had an agenda. Some people think he is right on, and others biased. I can’t resolve that debate, but I think the book makes a lot of valid points (assuming Powell did not just make the stuff up), but the overall point of the book is this (seems to me): Ideology produces bad governments.

I wonder if Jason wanted me to read the book to dampen my hopes of a Democratic majority in Congress accomplishing anything. Failed there Jason. All I have to do is remember that the alternative party is, in my opinion, the worst at governing of any party at any time in American history. In fact, the book absolutely, positively, reinforced my beliefs about the end course of Republican policies: catastrophe for the American economy, less freedom for the American people and more and more money, control and power in the hands of the lobbyists and the special interests they represent.

I have to admit that I tend to be naive, sometimes just plain stupid. I have a natural tendency to believe people tell the truth. (I mean it took a dozen years of practicing law to realize that most clients were lying when they told me they had no idea why their spouse wanted a divorce.) My point is that reading this book persuaded me that FDR and his administration were not the saviors of America with innovative and controversial ideas and programs to get America back to work, to recover economically, and provide ordinary people with the opportunity to attain the Amercian dream, whatever they thought that meant to them.

The books makes a convincing case for the proposition that during FDR’s 13 years in power, he and his cronies had an agenda that would surprise most Americans, particularly today’s Americans. According to the book (and I believe it true) FDR and his advisors used the Depression, the Great Depression, as a watershed event to justify an attack on free enterprise, big business, small business, all business and expand the idea of government control and regulation to unbelievable heights (or is it depths!).

According to the book, these Democrats adopted policies which achieved the opposite of the desired results. In an effort to put people back to work, they raised taxes on businesses, and decreased incentives to make money which resulted in less business expansion and fewer people being hired.

They did crazy things. Like forbidding businesses from cutting prices, ordering excess agricultural produce (milk, for example) destroyed even though people (children) were going to bed hungry. Bloggers would have had a wonderful time back in those days.

Why did they do these things? I know that can be debated but the book makes a convincing argument that it was because the men that created and operated these “recovery” programs, Roosevelt’s advisors, believed that Big Business was the primary cause of the depression, that business as a whole was bad, that the American economy needed to be planned and regulated to bring about a redistrubution of money from the rich to the less than rich. I could go on and on.

The point is that ideology prevailed, while certain freedoms and individual initiative took a back seat to regulation. The views and sympathies of a small group of people took over the legislative and executive branches of government. They were able to do so because everyone believed the Depression was no less a national emergency than war. They played on American’s fears, while offering deceptive consolation. Dissent was un-American. People were prosecuted for lowering the price of washing clothes! Nuts!!

And they did it all right in front of Americans. Fireside chats mesmerized our minds. I think FDR invented sound bites. FDR was loved by the commnon man because the common man did not know what he was doing. Americans believed what they were told, hook, line and sinker. They believed that there was no way their leaders would lie to them, deceive them or promote agendas detrimental to Amercian principles.

Enter 911, George Bush and the Republicans. Does this sound familiar? Hello!!!!!!

Read the book. If anyone has any information that the factual assertions in the book are not accurate, let me know.

Interview with Tom Bordeaux

Tom has served 16 years in the Georgia Legislature and has decided to retire from politics so he can devote more time to his family. Tom is the proud father of two children, three and five years old. In addition to being a father, Tom is an attorney who practices in Savannah. As an ex-politician, Tom gives us a broader perspective on the current state of Georgia politics and talks about the changes that have come about since the Republicans won control of the House and the Senate.

 
 Standard Podcast [28:22m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (183)