A number of conservatives and conservative groups in Washington, D.C. are pushing yet another pledge. This one is to cut, cap, and balance. They want you to pledge to urge your Senator and Congressman to oppose any debt limit unless all three of the following conditions are met: (1) substantial cuts in spending; (2) enforceable spending caps; and (3) passage of the Lee-Cornyn-Hatch Balanced Budget Amendment, known as S.J. Res. 10 in the Senate and H. J. Res. 56 in the House.
The pledge is wonderful. I fully support it. I also think any conservative and conservative organization that signs the pledge is feckless, spineless, and gutless unless one additional step is taken.
And the sad thing is, I suspect I am one thousand percent right that we’ll all be disappointed by the conservatives and conservative organizations signing the pledge. Here’s why.We’ve reached the point of no return in this country, but Republicans keep making deal after deal after deal. They’ll negotiate their way to hell and our country to fiscal ruin all while nuancing around pledges.
Meanwhile, the pledge makers and pledge signer really do nothing other than say “Oh my, Senator/Representative X broke the pledge. Tisk. Tisk.”
The time for tisk, tisking is over.
I’m calling on the conservatives and conservative organizations who agree to “cut, cap, and balance” to put up or shut up. Here’s the Erick Erickson Pledge:
I pledge that if any Republican votes to increase the debt ceiling without first cutting, capping, and balancing using Lee-Cornyn-Hatch, I will work like hell to beat the hell out of him/her in a primary, even if their election is 2014 or 2016.
The time for nuancing and diplomatic niceties in Washington are over.
Instead of standing around in a circle of Washington hoo-haaing like conservatives are prone to do lamenting their sorry fate and wringing their hands on what strategy to take to Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell, conservatives need to adopt a very simple strategy:
Hold the freaking line.
If any Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling without forcing (1) substantial cuts; (2) enforceable caps; and (3) sending the Lee-Cornyn-Hatch Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, the conservative movement must unite to beat the hell out of them in a primary. Period. End of Story. No more wimping out.
It really is that simple — or at least it is that simple unless your brain has atrophied from being inside the Beltway. Just don’t raise the debt ceiling. Oh, I know, some of you are getting sweaty palms thinking about it and insisting that we must raise the debt ceiling.
That’s what we always do.
Putting it bluntly — it is time to be a hostage taker and take the debt ceiling hostage to cutting, capping, and balancing the budget.
Will conservative organizations actually stand up and wage scorched earth in the name of saving the Republic, or will they yet again go limp when sold out for the billionth time. My money is on limp, but I hope others will stand on either hand and save this bridge with me.
By the way, the Lee-Cornyn-Hatch Balanced Budget amendment is non-negotiable. Other Republicans are offering up balanced budget amendments, but the alternatives either don’t limit spending or make it too easy to raise taxes instead of making spending cuts. Lee-Cornyn-Hatch has both a spending limitation component and requires a super-majority to raise taxes.
Folks, talk is over. It’s time for action.
Surface Encounters chuck russo [url=http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602]Surface Encounters chuck russo[/url] http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602 - Surface Encounters chuck russo
Surface Encounters complaints [url=http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520]http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/02/14/lifestyles/srv0000010907604.txt?viewmode=2[/url] http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520 - Surface Encounters complaints
Surface Encounters chuck russo [url=http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865]Surface Encounters[/url] http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865 - Surface Encounters chuck russo
Surface Encounters chuck russo [url=http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/]Surface Encounters reviews[/url] http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/ - click here
click here [url=http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html]Surface Encounters rock tops[/url] http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html - Surface Encounters
Fox <b>News</b> Nails Jon Stewart On MSM'S Palin-Weiner Hypocrisy - Big <b>...</b>
On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Jon Stewart dismissed the idea that the Palin email story was rooted in media bias. “If your contention is that they [the media] are relentlessly partisan, then why haven't they ...
Fox <b>News</b> Nails Jon Stewart On MSM'S Palin-Weiner Hypocrisy - Big <b>...</b>Pentax announces four additional Q mount lenses: Digital <b>...</b>
Pentax announces four additional Q mount lenses: Pentax has announced four additional lenses for its new Q mount. As well as the kit 49mm equivalent F1.9 '01 Standard Prime' lens that will come with the camera, ...
Pentax announces four additional Q mount lenses: Digital <b>...</b>2012 Contenders Respond to Obama's Afghanistan Speech - FoxNews.com
Republican presidential contenders issued responses to President Obama's televised address to the nation Thursday, during which he committed to withdrawing 10000 U. S..
2012 Contenders Respond to Obama's Afghanistan Speech - FoxNews.com
Peter Risdon Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
The paragraph you quoted from ends with this sentence:
“According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.”
That was a surprise given the tenor of this post: “… maybe this is the end to questions as to whether surface temperature increases actually exist.”
Did you mean that we can now say the answer to that is that surface temperature increases do not exist? Or that, pace Keenan in the WSJ, the data do not contain statistically significant trends?
andyrussell Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Reply
I don’t think diurnal temperature range is very important. Do you?
What’s more, the “century-scale” bit covers some interesting detail. Before Fall et al., it seems that the only work on diurnal temperature range showed a negative trend from the mid-century to 1980s-ish. What Fall et al. found was that this has increased again since the 1980s. So there’s no “century-scale trend”.
But that tells you very little about mean surface temperature trends.
Mark Says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I have heard it claimed that the reduction in diurnal temperature range over the past few decades provides evidence that GHG increases are responsible for the warming. In that sense, some people think diurnal temperature range is important.
Incidentally, I don’t think Fall et al. were the first to find that DTR has increased since the 1980s. I read a paper that said much the same thing a few years ago.
Sorry for the lack of references to back up these statements. I’m a little too busy at the moment to chase them up.
Ben Says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Reply
So Peter… If the diurnal high and the diurnal low both rise by 1°C, you think this means there has been no warming? After-all, the diurnal range hasn’t changed! Others might draw a different conclusion.
Peter Risdon Says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Reply
I understand diurnal range has significance, and the relationship between day and night time temperature ranges is important, especially with regard to the period 1950 to 1980 when the effect of man-made global warming, it has been argued, was masked by a cooling but revealed by the changes in the relationship between these ranges.
I further understand that this argument is based on the idea that human pollution caused this daytime cooling, that it affected the range of day time temperatures as well as the difference between night time temperatures which continued to show warming, and daytime ones that didn’t. This makes day time temperature range significant: if this is right it would be expected to show a variation that correlates with human activity.
But this isn’t my field; I’m just reading what I can in an attempt to understand as much as possible about an important issue and, for me at least, that means reading Watts and reading this blog. Just searching out stuff you’re already disposed to accept isn’t good enough. My comment was prompted by what struck me as a somewhat partial quotation and exasperation: I’m with Feynman when he said you should point out the problems with a theory, not just the things that support it.
[It's not really a "partial quotation" is it? That sentence you are interested in is stuck on the end of the abstract as a new paragraph and isn't really related to the 2 sentences I quote and which are related to the subject of this post. I'm not really interested in DTR and I doubt Watts was either. - AR]
At least Watts invites people with different views to post on his blog and has been at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide, not least with Judith Curry.
Ben, of course you’re right. Andy, a century is an arbitrary scale, of course.
I’d still be interested in your take on statistical significance.
JMurphy Says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Reply
In what way has Watts atempted to cross “the ideological divide” ?
Ben Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Reply
Peter, I encourage a critical (i.e. thoughtful) reading of Anthony’s blog but my god do you really think he’s “at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide”? Anthony has done more to harden denialist thought than anyone, with the possible exception Marc Morano.
The “different views” he solicits are unthreatening fig-leaves.
andyrussell Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Reply
I’ve got no problem with most of what Keenan says, although he’s not the first/only person to be saying these things. There’s a JoC paper from 2010 and it was one of the useful points to come out of the UEA email enquiries (i.e. working more with stats people). Not sure where the funding was supposed to come from for these new people though!
I suppose the bigger problem comes down to climate science covering so much stuff – you can’t just look at problems from a stats/dynamics/modelling/chemistry/radiation/whatever perspective for too long before a) not getting very far or b) needing to doing something you’ve not done before.