Dear My Georgian Friend Winspur,

It seems to me like the "flip-flopper" accusation is less about changing one's position (has McCain maintained a consistent position on anything?) than it is a coded reference to effeminacy, and by extension, homosexuality. Let's not forget the stereotype of the wrist-flapping homosexual.

Here's some Straight (not gay) Talk: Flip-flopping has nothing to do with being a you-know-what. It's about integrity and honor. Those are virtues I learned from Admiral Grandpa and Admiral Pa (who happened to be male, if that's ok with you). At Annapolis we have a Code of Honor. No changing your mind about anything. If you're right in the first place, why change? Sissies change. Example: I was against the Ruskies back in the 1950s, and I haven't flipped since. The Russian Bear(barian) is at the gates, Winspur, which is why I wrote in the WSJ yesterday, "We are all Georgians. We mustn't forget it." My neo-con friends beg me, " Turn us all into Tibetans and Somalis too," but this election is about change. I'm sticking with white countries from the Soviet Union. Let my Kenyan-Muslim opponent deal with the colored. They vote Democrat anyway. (Full disclosure: I reserve the right to make Missouri part of Latvia). Let me tell you, my friend

It is interesting reading the charges that the US antagonized Russia by recognizing Kosovo. Is that really where it starts? Didn't the previous Administration also do something in Kosovo? My memory is weak, so weak... (for what it's worth, the Foreign Affairs article Clemons links to is not so afflicted)

Those who have any doubts about the inaccuracies riddling Corsi's book may wish to have a look at the Fight The Smears web site, and download the PDF titled "Unfit for Publication." Assuming the Media Matters debunking efforts aren't enough, I mean. Glad to hear Conn didn't want to stand up for Corsi's piece of crap. Baby steps!

I'm surprised that those supposed lovers of the free market, the Heritage Foundation, are against Net Neutrality. Considering the reality that their sole reason for existence is to generate quasi-intellectual cover for whatever big business wants, though, I guess I'm really not. I would like to hear this topic debated on BH.tv sometime. I'm sure there are bloggers out there who are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm not familiar with this new talking point, that Net Neutrality threatens the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. On the surface of it, the logic escapes me, and it has the stench of a stalking horse, but I'll have to look into it. (Also willing to hear this viewpoint represented in the comments, of course.) It might be particularly instructive to have a pairing between the conservative blogger that Conn mentioned, David All from TechRepublican, who supports Net Neutrality, and another conservative blogger who doesn't. [Added] Here's a relevant post on TechRepublican, reacting to the Heritage Foundation meeting that Conn mentioned. Here are more posts on Net Neutrality from TR. Contra Conn's assertion that TR is a lone wolf, I've already noticed two other Republican supporters of NN mentioned: Vint Cerf and Glenn Reynolds.

It is interesting (to me at least) to note that the “gang of 10” compromise would lift the ban on nuclear reprocessing. This, alone, would be a monumental step toward energy independence. The fact that Conn Carroll, and other conservative republicans, would risk losing that in favour of a relatively small amount of oil from pristine shores is unbelievable. ANWR would, at best, provide no more than another 10 years of soccer mom SUV driving. Nuclear reprocessing, on the other hand, would provide clean, domestically sourced, electrical energy for our great great great grand children. This is truely American politics at its dirty worst.

Again, I ask you, what about T. Boone Pickens' plan? If you replied in another place, my apologies. I agree that the nuclear move is significant, even considering my reservations, which are not written in stone.

Quoting JIM3CH: It is interesting (to me at least) to note that the “gang of 10” compromise would lift the ban on nuclear reprocessing. This, alone, would be a monumental step toward energy independence. The fact that Conn Carroll, and other conservative republicans, would risk losing that in favour of a relatively small amount of oil from pristine shores is unbelievable.

Bravo for rightwing dissension, I say! But seriously, I agree that this is an interesting element. I haven't been following the details of this Go10 story much (apart from contacting them to brag to them that Ours Is Bigger), so I'm glad you're on top of it, and kicking in some details to the forum.

I suspect that Pickens’ plan is already somewhat contained in the flex-fuels initiatives that are already alive and well. But natural gas is, after all, just another fossil fuel. Personally I look toward the, not too distant, future when cars are powered only by hydrogen and electricity (both produced from non-fossil fuel sources). I do applaud his financial support for more wind and solar! What’s your feeling?

The subtitle for the last segment is inaccurate. The FCC made a pro-net neutrality decision, which many conservatives disagree with. The FCC commissioner that spoke at Heritage dissented in the 3-2 vote.
[Fixed. --BhTV] But I also have a question for bjkeefe: you assert that the Heritage foundation exists "to generate quasi-intellectual cover for whatever big business wants." You're hardly the first to say this. It is a very common trope on the left. But it always makes me giggle. What do you picture our process is for deciding "what big business wants." 99% of the fights in Washington are between big businesses (like net neutrality - it's Amazon, Google, and Microsoft against the cable companies). Do you imagine we hold some sort of auction, and what ever 'big business' writes the largest check, that's who we defend that day?

Conn, Careful here. You're dealing with someone who broke down Jonah Goldberg's philosophy to the following complicated analysis:

Quoting bjkeefe: Goldberg does preach directly to harkin's choir (message: The Left is Bad and All Bad Things are The Fault of The Left).

The next thing you know he'll dismiss you for not having an 'intellectual heft' worthy of listening to. It's how he rolls.
p.s. - Please keep coming to BhTV, there really are people here willing to listen.

Former Oilman Makes Bid for Homegrown Alternative Energy Honestly, I don't think Congress would pass a far-sighted energy law, addressing electricity and transportation, until there's a major crisis, which has not occurred yet. Unfortunately, it would take who knows how long to reform the system. A stop-gap plan has a huge drawback, in that it would create another self-perpetuating constituency that would stand in the way of the next step. But, there won't be a final answer, or magical technology that will be the answer for the ages. So, I think taking the marginal improvements Pickens offers is preferable to waiting. But, I don't know enough about NG to know if it would be as bad as oil to extract for the environment and even less efficient or expensive to implement. Pickens' one attractive argument is, that the US has NG to supply truck transportation. That is marginally better than buying foreign oil. I also get the feeling, that Pickens would need to pull off a fait accompli, such as a big pilot program in Texas. But, it seems liberals want a Manhattan project, an all-or-nothing development with a big test at the end. So, again it comes down to crisis and leadership.

Cut the baiting, Carroll! How about Conn Carroll, presumably a subject-matter expert on the daily workings of a species of American postwar institution unique in global history, the think-tank, tell bhTV about the importance of your job? And then, we untutored, post-Clinton liberals (and I'll choose the kindest epithet a conservative might give) will evaluate Heritage with your account in hand. You could compare notes with some progressive think tank fellow.

The next thing you know he'll dismiss you for not having an 'intellectual heft' worthy of listening to.

it's not a pissing contest, harkin. I just don't like people who don't let me make my own argument. It goes back to that education of science point: even scientific conclusions are no better than theological dogma, if the student doesn't do the experiment by him/herself. Liberal vs conservative boxers every day is boring and a waste of time!

Pickens does have a good point in the interview that you link to where he states that 1 million plug-in hybrids (Obama’s proposal) in a population of 250 million cars is just pissing into the wind.

This is a diavlog between Bill and Conn - why is does it seem like a diavlog between Joe Klein and Conn at one point?

I have seen estimates that to replace 1/4 of those vehicles with plugins will require around 170 average sized (600 + mw) new power plants. This is just to bring online enough electricity to power these vehicles. It doesn't include any new generating capacity for our growing need to power all those big flat screens and other indulgences or to replace the plants that are currently or in the near future will need to be replaced just because they are worn out. It all sounds so simple and easy when it slips past the lips of the advocates but the details seem to add a level of complication that none of the advocates are willing to mention.

I think that is pretty much a good estimate. Frankly I don’t share your pessimism, because building that many power plants is entirely within the domestic capability of the US. And it means lots of construction related jobs. Furthermore, if the power plants are nuclear rather than fossil, it means lots of professional level jobs as well. It’s passed time to get started.

I really didn't mean to sound a note of pessimism only to highlight the part of the argument that is so often glossed over in public discussion of the issue. I believe that the need can be meet but it is going to have to be meet with infrastructure not hope. I also agree the nuclear is the most logical choice but is probably not doable at that scale to factors other than feasibility. That means we will, for some proportion, trade coal for petrol and I don't can't see how the AGW crowd can see that as a good trade. It took 3 years to get oil out of the ground and running through the just completed Alaskan pipeline from the date permission was finally granted to build that pipeline. It took about twice that to get through the rules and litigation. Can you begin to imagine just how much obstructionism and NIMBY backlash there will be to trying to support this massive infrastructure change .

Quoting conncarroll: The subtitle for the last segment is inaccurate. The FCC made a pro-net neutrality decision, which many conservatives disagree with. The FCC commissioner that spoke at Heritage dissented in the 3-2 vote.

But I also have a question for bjkeefe: you assert that the Heritage foundation exists "to generate quasi-intellectual cover for whatever big business wants." You're hardly the first to say this. It is a very common trope on the left. But it always makes me giggle. What do you picture our process is for deciding "what big business wants." 99% of the fights in Washington are between big businesses (like net neutrality - it's Amazon, Google, and Microsoft against the cable companies). Do you imagine we hold some sort of auction, and what ever 'big business' writes the largest check, that's who we defend that day?

If you think net neutrality is big business against big business, doesn't that automatically paint you as someone who listens to money instead of voters? Obviously, the biggest impact of net neutrality is on the end user's experience. How everyone else splits up the pie *should* be a secondary consideration in a non-corrupt legislative environment. Just a thought. Or trope?

Quoting conncarroll: But I also have a question for bjkeefe: you assert that the Heritage foundation exists "to generate quasi-intellectual cover for whatever big business wants." You're hardly the first to say this. It is a very common trope on the left. But it always makes me giggle. What do you picture our process is for deciding "what big business wants." 99% of the fights in Washington are between big businesses (like net neutrality - it's Amazon, Google, and Microsoft against the cable companies). Do you imagine we hold some sort of auction, and what ever 'big business' writes the largest check, that's who we defend that day?

Conn: I'm sorry you took such humbrage at a throw-away line, when I was really interested in talking about Net Neutrality, but I suppose I'm to blame for saying it in the first place. Since you seem to care so much about this minor point, I'll give a short answer. I do hope that we can come back to a discussion of Net Neutrality (NN), though. I'll grant that I oversimplified by saying that Heritage exists to serve the interests of big business only. I do acknowledge that they have a broader mandate to

Quoting harkin: Conn,

Careful here. You're dealing with someone who broke down Jonah Goldberg's philosophy to the following complicated analysis:

Quoting bjkeefe: Goldberg does preach directly to harkin's choir (message: The Left is Bad and All Bad Things are The Fault of The Left).

The next thing you know he'll dismiss you for not having an 'intellectual heft' worthy of listening to.

It's how he rolls.

p.s. - Please keep coming to BhTV, there really are people here willing to listen.

Wow. This is the canonical harkin response. Definitely one for the bookmarks. One part victim, one part quailing about non-existent threats, one part obsession with me, one part seeing everything through the "us-vs-them" lens, and one part eagerness to fluff whoever speaks for his side. And absolutely not one word of substance related to the topics at hand. I'm tempted to say, harkin, that you've stripped away all the non-essentials and reached a Zen-like state of perfection, and there is no more need for you ever again to post a comment. But I won't, because you'd undoubtedly start crying about "censorship."

Great shot of Bill Scher at the Democratic convention.