Posts Tagged ‘Ed Markey’

Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Bully Boys Waxman and Markey Promote ‘Endangerment’ of Economy, Democracy

by Marlo Lewis, Jr.

This week (March 3, 2010) was the deadline Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) set for Mark Crisson, President and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), to explain why APPA is urging Senators to support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution to veto the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Senate may vote on the Murkowski resolution as soon as next week.

waxman-and-markey

Now, aside from the merits of the issue, which I’ll get into in a moment, Waxman and Markey’s behavior is out of line. Waxman and Markey (W/M) are Members of the House of Representatives. What business is it of theirs if the APPA lobbies Senators about a bill pending in the Senate? Senators can conduct their own inquiries without any assistance from W/M. And why didn’t W/M copy Sen. Murkowski or at least Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on their Feb. 25 letter to Mr. Crisson? Failure to “cc” any of the principals in the Senate flouts one of the most basic rules of legislative courtesy.

Besides being busybodies, Waxman and Markey are bullies.

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

Little Green Men and their ‘Indispensible’ Big Green Lobbyists

by Christopher C. Horner

Today E&E News reports (subscription required) green group faux-rage that industry reps were consulted on drafting an amendment by Sen. Lisa Murkowski to (IMO, rather unwisely) grant the Democrats a one-year reprieve from their looming political nightmare of EPA threatening to actually try and regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources by regulation under a Clean Air Act never designed for such foolishness.

lobbyist-on-capitol-steps

Such unseemly whimpering is about as credible as the greens’ phony “hacked emails!” outrage, over what was from all appearances a whistleblower releasing “ClimateGate” email evidence of dirty green tricks. These are the same crowd whose slimy green tactics include stealing my trash on a weekly basis and working with, e.g., the Guardian to dishonestly cobble together unrelated, out-of-context (unlike ClimateGate) excerpts from emails to paint a false picture. (”Greens involved in journalism process!”; sadly, the Guardian never called me for their “story” about, well, me, so I must confess I wasn’t involved).

Specifically, E&E notes how:

“the Washington Post reported yesterday that [Bracewell & Giuliani's Jeff Holmstead] and another former EPA official, Roger Martella, ‘helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall.’…

Environmentalists pounced on the reports as evidence that coal and oil interests are behind Murkowski’s efforts. ‘We now have proof that lobbyists for Big Oil, dirty coal and other special interests are directly involved in recent attempts to bail out big polluters and gut the Clean Air Act,’ said a Sierra Club press release. ‘What’s more, these big polluter lobbyists are the same former Bush administration officials who completely disregarded the Clean Air Act and even disobeyed the Supreme Court for years.’

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

ClimateGate: What, No ‘Raise Your Right Hand’ Photo-Op?

by Christopher C. Horner

I am told that, at this morning’s hearing of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, the Ranking Republican Jim Sensenbrenner (WI) requested that the two administration science witnesses — White House science advisor John Holdren, most recently seen in the ClimateGate emails defending the erasing from history the Medieval Warm Period, and NOAA administrator and longtime activist Jane Loubchenco — be sworn in before testifying.

51810836

Chairman Ed Markey conferred, then denied the request.

Could lead to all sorts of unpleasant things. Like the truth. Or consequences.

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

AstroTurfing and Global Warming: The Testimony You’re Not Supposed to Hear

by Christopher C. Horner

The Democratic majority objected to my appearing at a House hearing this morning addressing AstroTurfing in the global warming advocacy industry. The majority were not amused by the prospect of a discordant note being struck. As such, the Republicans will have no witnesses. They have agreed to this after being challenged. In Washington, we call times such as these “weekdays”.

closed_for_climate_justice

The hearing actually has devolved into something of an effort to rehabilitate certain Members who are now imperiled by their vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, particularly Tom Periello of Central Virginia (my Congressman, who has been hoodwinked by someone into stating, in defense of his vote, that the reason we are losing jobs to India and China is because they’ve already passed Waxman-Markey-type laws. Really. I agree we need to find out who is spreading such scurrilous tales to our lawmakers).

So, Rep. Periello will open the proceedings with a statement. The hearing was already delayed once because he refused to let anyone see what he was going to say in advance. They might ask questions. I don’t think that’s much of a threat.

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

Climate News Network

by Christopher C. Horner

This is pretty pathetic. CNN commissions a poll to assist with a week’s worth of Senate hearings and one in the House all designed to breathe life into the Senate’s counter to Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy rationing legislation. The express point of that scheme is to raise energy prices, which outcome our president has boasted as being to cause electricity (actually, all) energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” many firms.

CNN-entrance

The poll, splashed with a pretty clear headline, ran to one question.  Er, wait. They’re only pushing one question and its answer. No drilling down provided, though it may have been pursued. The poll actually appears to be at least 16 questions long, though when linking to the pdf for the “full results”, you get one question and answer.

How much editorializing/cheerleading does CNN do about this apparently selective snapshot? Well, the question-and-answer in their entirety total 68 words, which led to CNN providing, ah, context and texture to the public’s voice– to sell the question-and-answer to the public if not to add any meaning or context to the question itself for those responding to the poll — nearly six times as many (390 words plus headline).

(more…)