Karl Rove sees signs of GOP comeback

Karl Rove quote…

“What a difference a month makes. Since November’s election, the GOP is three wins, no losses. The first win came in Georgia, where Sen. Saxby Chambliss crushed his Democratic opponent by 15 points in a run-off election on Dec. 2. The other wins came in Louisiana congressional races on Saturday. One was in a Republican-leaning district in the state’s northwest corner. Democrats outspent the GOP three to two and still lost. In the other, Republican Anh “Joseph” Cao defeated nine-term Democrat William Jefferson in a district where John McCain received 24% of the vote. APThese victories have boosted Republican spirits. So has Sen. Norm Coleman maintaining a narrow lead in the Minnesota recount, leadership elections that injected new blood into the GOP congressional hierarchies, and a positive race (so far) for Republican National Committee chairman. Republican governors emerged from meeting in Miami energized, optimistic and eager for the 38 gubernatorial races in the next two years.”

Wall Street Journal, 12/11/08

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:01 | Posted in Measure 37 | 36 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Provo

    This is too early to make any predictions or signs. Come on folks.

  • Kenny

    Boosted Republican spirits? This Christmas Spirit has not blown into the NW yet.

  • Bill Sizemore

    Democrats control the entire process in Oregon and they are going to use their control to raise taxes in areas that hit everyday people right square in the pocketbook with the kind of taxes and fees that working people feel, the kind of taxes that have set off taxpayer revolts and ended political careers in states as far apart as Washington State and Virginia.

    That is why there will be a Republican comeback. The Democrats always misread their election victories as a mandate to increase taxes and that opens the door for Republican resurgence. The same will happen nationally.

    I would read less into the three Republican victories than Karl Rove, but I think it is reasonable to infer that voters saw Democrats on the cusp of supermajority control of the Congress and that scared them. They rationally feared the kind of extreme government, which surely would have followed (and still may).

    The real question for some of us activist types is whether to collect the signatures to force a public vote on the major tax and increases Kulongoski and Courtney are planning or let voters feel the pain of the choices they have made. Maybe it is a strategic mistake to protect voters from the Democrats they elect. The new DMV just might be the Republicans’ tickt back to relevance.

    • eagle eye

      You might be right. The voters seem to want to vote in liberal Democrats, then use the initiative system to curb their most excessive tendencies. Maybe if the voters had to live with the consequences of voting in Democrats, they would think a lot harder about it.

    • Jay

      Please, Bill, keep away from the signature collection process so the referendums can be successful. Your involvement will only continue to taint conservatives and slow any momentum we might gain.

  • Bob Clark

    On a related matter:
    I think it’s a mistake to rally behind Gordon Smith for Republican governor in the 2010 race. The biggest thing democrats could fear is if Smith switched parties to be a Democrat and then filed for the governor race.

    The Republican party needs to re-establish a brand, like being a counterbalance to democrat party policies like tax hikes, union protection, and environmental obessivie compulsive disorder. Rino Smith sure doesn’t do this, nor did McCain.

    • dean

      Bob…what part of that brand does the Republican party not already have? Anti-taxes, anti-union, and anti-environment spell Republican. Add in anti-choice on abortion, anti-immigration, and anti-science and you get a lot of antis as your brand. So all you have to do is wait until we Democrats screw up, which we will sooner or later, and you can run again as the anti-democrats. Great strategy if you remain patient.

      • jim karlock

        They may be “anti-science” on some social issues but they have the science of AGW right, except for a few pandering leaders.

        BTW, we are still waiting for your proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. I’ll leave it to you as a published author to pick a reasonable definition of dangerous.

  • Bo

    Dean, you are forgetting abotu the anti-anti’s who dislike the anti’s. Very important rising crowd in the GOP.

    • dean

      Tell us more. You mean the David Frums of the world?

      • jim karlock

        *Hey Dean,* we are still waiting for your proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. I’ll leave it to you as a published author to pick a reasonable definition of dangerous.

  • Anonymous

    Typical dean with his typical blue delusions.

    Republicans are anti-excessive-taxes, not anti all taxes.
    Rs are not anti-enviro, they’re anti-envio-extremism.
    Rs are not anti-choice on abortion, for the most part they are anti-public funded-minors on demand-late term-without parental notification abortions.
    Rs are not anti-immigration, they are anti-illegal immigration.
    Rs are not anti-science, they are anti-corrupted science.

    Of course dean and the blues are pro-tax of every kind for every reason, environmental extremists who take property rights choices away from everyone, they’re anti-school choice, anti-business, anti immigration enforcement and anti-open debate.

    Among many others.

    But the blue deans like to mischaracterize both themselves and their oppostion. That’s what they do.

    • dean

      Name me a tax Republicans have endorsed over the past 10 years. Name me an environmental issue they have supported. Show me the Republican candidate who could get nominated for a high state or federal office based on being pro-choice but for the exceptions you list. And give me an example of “uncorrupted” science. It’s not Democrats who doubt evoloution, long settled science, and push teaching of creationism in public schools.

      Gordon Smith was villified on this site for being “too moderate.” As was McCain. Meanwhile Obama, a moderate Democrat, was accused of socialism for daring to promote raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans by a few ticks. A position the large majority of Americans supported by the way.

      If Republicans decide to go back to being the center-left party they once were, then they will get back into elected office. If they stay right they will be a southern regional party.

      Oh, and we both forgot to mention anti-social security. That one is a real winner.

      • jim karlock

        *Hey Dean,* we’re still waiting – when are you going to cough up proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. (I’ll leave it to you as a published author to pick a reasonable definition of dangerous.)

        Or are admitting that your beliefs baseless?

        Thanks
        JK

        • dean

          Jim…the field of mathematics “proves” things. Science is based on preoponderance of evidence. The proponderance of evidence is that increased CO2 results in increased warming which will create problems for us.

          • Steve Plunk

            Dean,

            You’ve got it wrong. Science is based upon a hypothesis and subsequent experimental results that support the hypothesis. Replication of those results is necessary for the science to become accepted.

            The most common theories of AGW cannot be replicated as they are predictions. Many of the underlying assumptions for those predictions have been proven without merit. The Mann “hockey stick” graph was used for years to illustrate the dangers of ignoring AGW and the “tipping point” that would come. We now know Mann’s work was in error if not completely fraudulent. This is but one example of the way science is NOT supposed to work.

          • dean

            Steve…the on line version of the OED has this on science:
            noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject

            Climate science is both of those. And as a branch of natural science, it specifically deals with the physical world. Climate scientists can and have isolated variables that link an increase in greenhouse gases with an increase in temperature. They have observed an increase in temperature, an increase in CO2, and they have built mathematical models of the relationship. They can’t “prove the future” to you or anyone else. They predict based on what they can measure.

            The Hockey stick graph was a reconstruction of past climate up through 1999. I don’t recall that it suggested any tipping point. It simply showed how much climate has changed in the past several decades, and refuted the common belief that the “Medieval warm period” was comparably warm planet wide.

            Two non-climate researchers (an economist and petroleum geologist) attempted to refute the Hockey stick methodology and findings. They were able to poke a hole or 2 in Mann’s methodology, but not the findings. Those have held up even when different methodilogies are used.

          • jim karlock

            *dean:* Climate scientists can and have isolated variables that link an increase in greenhouse gases with an increase in temperature.
            *JK:* Lets go thru your errors one by one:

            *dean:* They have observed an increase in temperature, an increase in CO2,
            *JK:* So, far, so good. Now tell us which is the cause and which is the effect. Peer-reviewed papers only please.

            I’ll give you a hint: “At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations.”

            Here is another hint: A cause cannot precede the effect.

            Again I ask: where is the evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

            *dean:* and they have built mathematical models of the relationship.
            *JK:* None of which have made successful predictions, an essential; element of a useful model.
            1. They predict a warming in a certain area of the atmosphere – it cooled.
            2. Twenty years ago, Hansen predicted major warming by now. It has cooled using the data set that Hansen himself maintains at NASA

            *dean:* They can’t “prove the future” to you or anyone else. They predict based on what they can measure.
            *JK:* They are not predictions they are “scenarios”. You can’t even get this basic fact correct.

            *dean:* The Hockey stick graph was a reconstruction of past climate up through 1999. I don’t recall that it suggested any tipping point. It simply showed how much climate has changed in the past several decades,
            *JK:* The Wegman report was commissioned by congress and done by the National Academy Of Sciences. Wegman is a world renowned statistical expert and former head of the National Academy of Sciences statistics division.
            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49* (MBH is the hockey stick paper): Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.

            *dean:* and refuted the common belief that the “Medieval warm period” was comparably warm planet wide.
            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:* The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

            *dean:* Two non-climate researchers (an economist and petroleum geologist) attempted to refute the Hockey stick methodology and findings.
            *Wegman Report, item 6, page 49:* Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.

            *dean:* They were able to poke a hole or 2 in Mann’s methodology, but not the findings.
            *Wegman Report, page 52:* Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

            *JK:* I’ll leave you with just a few more quotes from Wegman:
            *Wegman Report, page 49:* 1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 49:* 2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and
            offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 49, item 3:* . . Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully
            appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have
            Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

            *Wegman Report, page 49:* 8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
            mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 52:* Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

            *JK:* You are simply following liars and fools. Please educate yourself with real scientists.

            Thanks
            JK

          • dean

            Jim…the Wegman report was not peer reviewed, and basically came up bupkis. I mean…read the stuff you sent. They found the ‘writing” to be obscure? Every technical paper I have ever read has obscure writing. Their main crit seems to be that Mann did not include statisticians on his team. This was a political circus…nothing more.

            “Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” was the title of the paper Mann et al published that included the “Hockey stick” graph of past temperatures. Note *uncertainties and limitations* right there in the title. Mann never claimed perfect knowledge nor that his proxies were perfect. Though his core findings have been upheld again and again by many others, you and your fellow doubters keep beating this dead horse with a broken hockey stick.

            Reconstructing past climate, before there were actual records, which by the way you also have expressed distrust in (parking lots and all,) is uncertain and will remain so. As is the future.

            And while you wait for perfect evdence we keep spewing CO2 out and compound our risk. Its one thing to make errors without knowing what one is doing. Its another to deliberately ignore the evidence.

          • jim karlock

            Dean: the Wegman report was not peer reviewed
            JK:
            1. It was produced by a committee of the National Association of Sciences.
            2. Most of the stuff you spew is not peer reviewed, otherwise you would not be claiming that CO2 causes climate change.

            We are still waiting for your peer reviewed proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

            Please produce this or quit spreading Al GOre’s get rich quick lies.

            THanks
            JK

          • dean

            Yes…a committee that issued a non-peer reviewed report. It was a political document, and the only critique they had that has held up was about Mann’s statistical methodology. His results have held up under numerous other analyses.

            Read the stuff you clipped from Wegman. He never said Mann was wrong. He said his statistical analysis did not support the conclusions. He said there was not enough data to be sure that 1998 was the hottest year in the past 1000. He didn’t say there was any evidence there were any hotter years. He then critiqued Mann for NOT providing “insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.” But mann’s paper wasn’t about that. It was about reconstructing historical temperatures…period. he makes ‘process” arguments that Mann did not provide all his data. True enough….but so what? He has since done so and others have used that data to reach teh same conclusions.

            What you got is a whole lotta nothing Jim. Sorry to break that to you.

            You keep repeating the same queston and I’ll keep repeating the same answer. Science does not create proofs. It creates a body of evidence. You simply don’t accept the evidence, so you demand a “proof” that is not possible to provide.

          • jim karlock

            *Dean:* Yes…a committee that issued a non-peer reviewed report. It was a political document,
            *JK:* It was NOT a political document – it was written by real scientists, unlike the IPCC report which was written by political hacks. The IPCC report is the one that is a political document.

            *Dean:* His results have held up under numerous other analyses.
            *JK:* Prove it with papers from OTHER than his inner circle of frends.

            *Dean:* Read the stuff you clipped from Wegman. He never said Mann was wrong. He said his statistical analysis did not support the conclusions.
            *JK:* Right. That is the way scientists say the guy is full of shit. His conclusions are unsupported – he is blowing hot air. Just like AL Gore and you.

            *Dean:* He said there was not enough data to be sure that 1998 was the hottest year in the past 1000.
            *JK:* Again he said Mann was full if shit. He claimed conclusions unsupported by the data.

            *Dean:* He then critiqued Mann for NOT providing “insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.” But mann’s paper wasn’t about that. It was about reconstructing historical temperatures…period.
            *JK:* Then why did he include future projections? You do know that most of the sharp rise is a projection, don’t you??

            *Dean:* he makes ‘process” arguments that Mann did not provide all his data. True enough….but so what? He has since done so and others have used that data to reach teh same conclusions.
            *JK:* He tried to hide the data to prevent double checking. Once McIntyre got the data (or re-constructed it) Mann’s deception unfolded.

            *Dean:* What you got is a whole lotta nothing Jim. Sorry to break that to you.
            *JK:* Then you must have evidence that CO2 actually causes maningful warming. Show it.

            *Dean:* You keep repeating the same queston and I’ll keep repeating the same answer. Science does not create proofs. It creates a body of evidence.
            *JK:* Then show us that evidence. The foundation of your desire to hurt millions of people, in the name of saving the earth, is that CO2 is causing warming, so show us that “body of evidence” implicating CO2.
            Of course, to be credible, you will have to explain the FACT that temperature leads CO2 by about 800 years in the antarctic ice cores.

            Thanks
            JK

          • dean

            Jim…your arguments are degenerating into schoolyard taunts. Not worth responding to. When you accuse me of having a “desire to hurt millions of people…” that is over the top. You have no cause to make that claim.

          • jim karlock

            *Hey, Dean*
            *We are Still Waiting!*
            Show us that “body of evidence” implicating CO2.
            Of course, to be credible, you will have to explain the FACT that temperature leads CO2 by about 800 years in the antarctic ice cores.
            *Your inability to show evidence just shows that you are knowingly blowing hot air.*

            Thanks
            JK

          • jim karlock

            *Today’s JunkScience.com has a article mentioning the effect of doubling CO2 – 1 degree of warming and only 3.3 degree for 10x CO2*

            Of course the Gore zombies will ask for a peer-reviewed journal article, so here it is (you will have to get the journal and look at fig 3 – it shows *3.3 degree of warming for TEN TIMES CO2 INCREASE.* :

            “Figure 3. Sensitivity of global mean surface temperature (solid line), tropical surface temperature (dashed line) and polar temperature (dotted line) to an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10. The vertical line marks the value of the von-Karman parameter of the control simulation of k = 0.4.”

            From: Maximum entropy production and the strength of boundary layer exchange in an atmospheric general https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/files/forschung/theomet/docs/pdf/2006-GRL-Karman.pdf

            Have a nice zombiehood
            JK

          • dean

            Your source is “junkscience.com”? Enough said.

            We are coming to get you.

          • jim karlock

            *Well Dean,* I see you are up to your usual standard of paying attention. I wrote:
            “Of course the Gore zombies will ask for a peer-reviewed journal article, so here it is:”

            *I then cited the source* and provided a link:
            From: Maximum entropy production and the strength of boundary layer exchange in an atmospheric general https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/files/forschung/theomet/docs/pdf/2006-GRL-Karman.pdf

            You were too lazy or illiterate to look at the peer-reviewed article before dismissing it. That is how you remain stupid in a world full of accurate information.

            You may be surprised to learn that many web sited provide leads to quality journals . Quit being stupid.

            Thanks
            JK

          • dean

            So Jim…for the first time you are placing your trust in climate models? Or just the results of this particular climate model because it gave you the answer you prefer?

          • jim karlock

            I don’t place my trust in any one thing. But it is one more piece of evidence stacking up against the alarmist profiteers.

            *BTW, Dean we are still waiting* for you to show us evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

            Note that the cited article suggests that even a 200-300% increase in CO2 would not be particularly dangerous.

            Thanks
            JK

          • dean

            If their model holds up, that will be great and we can happily burn up the rest of the earth’s fossil fuels as quickly as we can pump them out or dig them up. If this model does not hold up, what is your next step Jim? Going back to ridiculing weather stations in parking lots?

          • jim karlock

            *BTW, Dean we are still waiting for you to show us evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.*

          • jim karlock

            *Dean:* . . . what is your next step Jim? Going back to ridiculing weather stations in parking lots?
            *JK:* Are suggestion that one should not criticize placing weather stations improperly?

            If that is your suggestion, you are far more out of touch with reality than I thought.

            Thanks

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >If Republicans decide to go back to being the center-left party they once were, then they will get back into elected office. If they stay right they will be a southern regional party.

        You don’t really believe this do you? No one could seriously be making such a bigoted statement, as well as such an historically inaccurate one with any sort of seriousness.

        • dean

          Bigoted statement? I thought it was a statement about political geographic reality. Did you look at the electoral map? If it makes you feel better I will throw in the Great Plains states plus Utah and Idaho.

    • Amerrican Joe

      Let’s all be clear on the abortion issue:

      People can CHOOSE to have sex or not. After that people need to CHOOSE to accept personal responsibility for their actions.

  • Scottiebill

    In the next election cycles, 2010 and 2012, the Republican Party might be well advised to adopt the Chairman Obama campaign slogan, “Change we can believe in.” Because by then this country will be in desperate need of change.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)