Jay Reding.com

Scott Johnson has a deeply skeptical look at Sen. McCain’s new “climate change” policy

. From a standpoint of policy, that skepticism is well warranted. The political story, however, is entirely different.

The political reality is this: global warming concerns are part of the political landscape now. Too many voters have bought into the hype to stake a position on the theory that climate change doesn’t matter in this election. While that is bad science, that is also the political reality the GOP faces. For that matter, even if there is no man-made global warming, there’s no reason why America shouldn’t be looking ahead to an age of increasing scarcity of oil. The more power America gets domestically from renewable resources, the fewer petrodollars flow into the hands of two-bit tyrants like Hugo Chavez. Some “green” policies make sense for other reasons than environmental hysteria.

The problem with the McCain approach is that it gets the politics right, but makes for atrocious public policy. For example, a “cap and trade” system would necessitate a massive new government bureaucracy and raise America’s energy prices. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the current Lieberman-Warner bill amounts to a trillion dollar tax increase in a time when Americans are already finding it hard to pay for energy. Even more troubling, this tax would be incredibly regressive, its impacts adding more stress to families barely able to pay for heat and fuel.

Republicans should have a plan that reduces our dependence on sources of energy that produce pollution. However, that should not mean abandoning political principles or the rules of basic economics. The GOP should push for more clean nuclear power, tax credits for research and development of clean fuel sources, and should embrace something like Bob Zubrin’s flex-fuel plan (using cellulosic ethanol rather than burning what we eat). There are plenty of economically viable ways for the U.S. to “go green,” but we need policymakers willing to support those sound policies.

The GOP has good reason to grumble at McCain’s energy policy, but the fact that it talks about climate change is not it. It would be nice for more politicians to stand against the bad science behind the global warming movement, but in an election year you have to pick and choose your battles, and this year the GOP needs to have an energy policy on the table to compete on this issue.

Ed Morrissey rightfully goes after Sen. John McCain for his comments that pork-barrel spending caused the I-35W bridge collapse. It’s one thing to say that money spent on pork can’t be used for better purposes, like infrastructure repair. That’s a legitimate argument. However, money had nothing to do with the I-35W bridge collapse, either a lack of it or too much of it. The problem was that when the bridge was built in the 1960s it had a critical design flaw that wasn’t identified until after the collapse.

It’s bad enough when Democrats try to politicize the collapse—it does not behoove Republicans to do the same.

UPDATE: McCain is backing away from his comment, as well he should. Earmark reform is a serious issue—it doesn’t need to be tied to an unrelated bridge collapse to be good policy.

The AP reports that John McCain has been able to consolidate the Republican base and is even winning some independents and Democrats as well:

Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party’s nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.

Of those who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds voted for President Bush in 2004 but are now unhappy with him, including many independents who lean Republican. The remaining one-third usually support Democrats but like McCain anyway.

This isn’t all that surprising—McCain has always had strong appeal with independents and some Democrats. In an election season where the Democratic Party is deeply and bitterly divided McCain’s strength among conservative Democrats and independents may be his greatest single asset.

Of course, McCain cannot just rest on his laurels. The American electorate needs a candidate who can provide real solutions to our problems. Sen. McCain must take the lead on healthcare, the environment, fuel prices, and the war. His plan to offer a “gas tax holiday” this summer is the sort of populist plan that could have broad appeal, but Republican policymakers need to do more than offer various tax credits. McCain’s already come out with some promising policy positions on issues like taxes and the environment, but he needs to do more. There’s plenty of time to do that (and that can’t really happen until the Democrats stop sucking all the oxygen out of the room), but it has to be done.

With the GOP base supporting McCain, he can start to reach out to independents at a time when the Democrats are fighting over the liberal base. In a year where the GOP “brand” is hardly in good shape, McCain’s “maverick” cred is extremely helpful. However, McCain will have to walk a tight line between appealing to independents without alienating conservatives. The fact that he’s running against two dyed-in-the-wool liberals will help him, but it won’t get him into office. Make no mistake, even though McCain is in a very strong position right now, this will be a long, hard fight. McCain will need to take some strong substantive positions on key issues, which he so far has not done. The American middle class is worried, and McCain needs to be able to speak to those worries and give them something to vote on other than biography.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller managed to put his foot firmly in his mouth today, forcing a subsequent flurry of retractions and apologies. Sen. Rockefeller comment?

“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit,” Rockefeller told the newspaper, which published the article on the interview Tuesday. “What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues,” he is quoted saying.

Sen. Rockefeller is not only issuing a smear, but he’s also clearly has no idea about what actually happened in Vietnam. For one, Sen. McCain was shot down when his plane was at a very low altitude—4,500 feet. The purpose of flying that low? To avoid collateral damage to civilians.

Laser-guided “missiles” were not invented until long after the end of Vietnam.

Sen. McCain, of course, spent years as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. Undoubtedly he was quite well aware of what was happening on the ground.

This kind of lazy, offensive, and stupid slur is only the beginning of the sort of smears we can expect to see throughout this election season. We’ve heard for years how supposedly some sinister Republican operatives smeared McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race—by November, all those attacks will likely seem tame in comparison.

Not only that, but radio shock jock Ed Schultz accused Sen. McCain of being a “warmonger” in the presence of Sen. Obama during the North Dakota Democratic Convention. That smear is already the predominant one flying around the extremist left-wing blogosphere. The problem with that smear is that Sen. McCain knows more than anyone what the horrors of war really are, having been tortured nearly to death several times while a POW—and not only that, it’s hard to argue that Sen. McCain doesn’t care about the troops when one of them is his son, and another is likely to serve in Iraq soon. If that’s the plan of attack that the Democrats will have, expect the American people to see them as the desperate and disgusting smears that they are.

Do the Democrats honestly think that this sort of juvenile rhetoric actually persuades people? Or that it doesn’t persuade them to think less of those who use it? If the Democrats want to attack McCain on substance for his support of the war, that’s one thing. That’s a legitimate argument to make. But so far we have Sen. Rockefeller’s ignorant smear, Ed Schultz’ “warmonger” slur, and the Obama campaign constantly misleading the American public by saying that McCain wants there to be “100 years” of war in Iraq. None of those attacks are factual, all of them are misleading, and none of them have an ounce of substance to them.

If this is going to be the sort of rhetoric we can expect throughout this election campaign, then it will signal a return to politics as usual and the rhetoric of personal destruction rather than the substance that America deserves.

UPDATE: The Columbia Journalism Review has a piece on why Obama is distorting McCain’s “100 years” comment.

Mark Hemingway makes the case for a McCain/Romney ticket. To be honest, I think that’s the smartest choice for McCain—provided he can bury the hatchet. McCain needs someone who is young, appeals to conservatives, and can speak convincingly on the economy. Romney is someone who can deliver on all of those accounts. To be honest, Romney has always struck me as a bit of a technocrat, and the Vice Presidency is the best office for someone of that persuasion.

Romney’s biggest disadvantage is that he doesn’t really deliver any new states to McCain—but that seems less of a concern in modern electoral politics. For that matter, I don’t really see a McCain/Pawlenty ticket handing Minnesota to McCain either (although it’s within the realm of possibility).

What Romney really delivers is some straight talk on the economy—and the GOP needs to get an economic plan together or they will get creamed in the fall. Romney has the portfolio to do that—the man is a turnaround expert, and the US economy badly needs a turnaround. He comes with some baggage, but not enough to make him a distraction.

I don’t know if the McCain camp is serious considering Romney as a VP or not, but on a number of levels that may be one of his best choices to unite conservatives and to give him some much-needed economic credibility.