We deserve better from the GOP field, a point I dilate today in the Daily Caller with the latest spin-off of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama.  An extended excerpt:

But it is amazing that there’s been virtually no serious question asked of the candidates about their extended views of, for example, the Commerce Clause of Article I, and whether they think Obamacare is compatible with it. It would provide an occasion for each candidate to anchor their limited government views in our charter of limited government, and remind the American people of the fundamental principles of that document. Ron Paul seemingly does the best job overall, referencing a strict view of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, but he doesn’t really offer a fully developed constitutional philosophy.

This contrasts sharply with previous presidents and successful presidential campaigns, which often signaled important changes in direction in our understanding of the Constitution by making sustained arguments about its meaning. In modern times, Franklin Roosevelt made an extensive argument, on the eve of the 1932 election, about why the Constitution needed to be understood in new ways amidst the crisis of the Great Depression, and then again in his infamous “court packing” crusade in his second term. A few years before FDR, Calvin Coolidge, who was not the “Silent Cal” of historical repute, argued vigorously against the Progressive Era idea that’s come to be known as the “living Constitution.” And the most prominent champion of that idea was Woodrow Wilson, who enjoys the dubious reputation of being the first president to criticize the Constitution openly.

With only a few exceptions (Ronald Reagan was one), for some reason in recent decades presidential candidates have grown increasingly illiterate about the Constitution, supinely surrendering to the view that constitutional interpretation is a matter relegated to the Supreme Court. Presidents and candidates for the office throughout the whole of the 19th century took seriously not merely their duty to the Constitution, as spelled out in their oath of office “to preserve, protect, and defend” it, but their indispensable role as teachers of the American people. Most inaugural addresses of 19th-century presidents devoted half their length to discussing the Constitution and our obligations to uphold it. Today it typically receives a brief and almost ceremonial mention in most inaugural addresses.

The latest example is the fiasco over the burning of a few Korans by American troops. The facts surrounding the incident are somewhat murky; apparently a number of books were being used by Taliban prisoners to smuggle messages, and 60 or 70 books were confiscated and destroyed, some of which turned out to be Korans. The Korans’ burning is generally described as “accidental.” I assume that means, not that the destruction was unintended, but that the troops who carried it out did not realize that some of the volumes were Korans–not surprising, since they were not in English.

What we do know for sure is that the response of many Afghans was outrageous. Dozens of people have been killed or wounded, including a number of American servicemen. The ongoing violence illustrates the primitive level of culture in Afghanistan. The country, if it can properly be called such, is hundreds of years behind modern civilization. I don’t think nation-building is always a bad idea, but a certain amount and quality of raw material is required. In Afghanistan, the prerequisites for successful nation-building are absent.

Our initial overthrow of the Taliban at the end of 2001 was absolutely necessary. The Taliban had harbored al Qaeda and collaborated, in effect, in the September 11 attacks. Since then, we have killed large numbers of Taliban. That is a good thing, but the returns are diminishing. When we leave, the Taliban or similar Islamic extremists presumably will take control of portions, at least, of the country. That is a bad thing, obviously, but the same result seems more or less equally likely no matter when our troops depart.

It has never been clear why we can’t use drones, air power and troops stationed reasonably nearby to prevent the Taliban or other extremist groups from setting up extensive training centers that can be used for attacks on the U.S., such as those that existed before September 2001. If such measures are feasible, leaving Afghanistan should not damage our security. And, in any event, if our security depends on Afghanistan becoming a decent society within a lifetime or two, God help us.

Currently, as we noted last month, President Obama seems to be setting up a negotiated “peace” agreement of some sort with a Taliban front group. That, too, is a terrible idea. Let’s not negotiate anything or engage in any pretense; let’s just get out, while killing a few more terrorists on the way to the door.

As you might expect, the results show strong partisan trends: Republicans love Texas and dislike California, while Democrats love California and hate Texas. On the other hand, everyone likes Hawaii. The five most popular states, with their favorable/unfavorable numbers in parenthesis, are Hawaii (54/10), Colorado (44/9), Tennessee (48/14), South Dakota (42/8) and Virginia (45/13). The least popular include California (27/44), Illinois (19/29) and New Jersey (25/32).

There are some anomalies. Wisconsin (40/17) is significantly more popular than Minnesota (27/17). What is the difference? The only explanation I can think of is that Wisconsin’s sports teams have been better than Minnesota’s in recent years. Another odd fact: both liberals and conservatives like Minnesota, but moderates disapprove of the state. What could possibly be going on there?

There are a lot of interesting comparisons to be drawn, but one concerns me a little. The mountain states are almost universally popular. Colorado is the second most favorably viewed state, but most of the other mountain states are not far behind, e.g., Montana (39/7) and Idaho (30/11). The anomaly is Utah. At 24/27, it is the fifth-least favorably perceived state.

How can that be? If you like Colorado, Idaho and Montana, why would you dislike Utah? I can’t think of any reason other than anti-Mormon bias. This is borne out by the fact that liberals and Democrats, who are most prone to ethnic and religious bigotry, are the ones who actively dislike Utah. But the numbers are depressed across the board, compared with other mountain states: Republicans only approve of Utah by a 30/23 margin, Independents are the same at 29/23, and Democrats disapprove of the state by 14/32. Moreover, while the very liberal have an unfavorable opinion of Utah (21/43), so do the very conservative (25/32). The very conservative, on the other hand, love Idaho (36/6).

One wonders whether these numbers explain some of the dynamics of the current GOP primary season, and whether they suggest a lingering anti-LDS prejudice that could be a problem for Mitt Romney, if he is the Republican nominee, in November.

In no area is Cameron more slavish to conventional fashion that global warming.  Only four Tory Party MPs voted against the Climate Change Act that Cameron inherited from the Labour Party and rammed through the House of Commons.  But the growing backlash, prompted in part by soaring energy costs for consumers along with the revelations of huge wind subsidy payments to some of the largest and richest landowners in Britain, may be about to put the whole thing into reverse.  And then there’s the presentation MIT’s Richard Lindzen gave at the House of Commons the other day.  Here are a few highlights from his slides:

I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change – or as it was once referred to: global warming. Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

From here Lindzen walks through in considerable technical detail how the predictive climate models work (and especially the dubious treatment of the all important feedback effects in the models), and also debunks the alarm over changes in Arctic ice masses.  Then he pivots:

Where do we go from here?

Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2 levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2 (a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.

Lindzen also offers up this scary observation from an official U.S. government source:

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.  Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

Source?  The U.S. Weather Bureau.  In 1922.

He concludes:

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

It’s worth going through the whole thing at leisure, after which conduct this thought experiment: A debate between Lindzen and Al Gore.

In reporting on Lindzen’s powerful presentation, The Independent newspaper wonders: “Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millennium Bug, a mistake?”  Keep in mind that The Independent is a left-leaning paper, not a Morloch Murdoch rag.  And if the left-leaning papers are now asking such questions, how much longer before the roof starts to fall in completely on the climateers?

P.S. Oh, by the way, the Australian Labour Party is right now tearing itself into tiny pieces partly on account of its embrace of the climate campaign’s agenda of fossil fuel suppression.  It’s total collapse could come within the next 48 hours.

Tau links to the Koch Companies’ response, a letter to the Obama campaign from Phillip Ellender, head of Government Affairs and Public Relations at the Koch Companies. It seems to me that Ellender’s letter deserves the widest circulation. Here it is:

Mr. Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Dear Mr. Messina:

Because every American has the right to take part in the public discourse on matters that affect the future of our country, I feel compelled to respond directly about a fundraising letter you sent out on February 24 denouncing Koch. It is both surprising and disappointing that the President would allow his re-election team to send such an irresponsible and misleading letter to his supporters.

For example, it is false that our “business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump.” Our business vision begins and ends with value creation — real, long-term value for customers and for society. We own no gasoline stations and the part of our business you allude to, oil and gas refining, actually lowers the price of gasoline by increasing supply. Either you simply misunderstand the way commodities markets work or you are misleading your supporters and the rest of the American people.

Contrary to your assertion that we have “committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama,” we have stated publicly and repeatedly since last November that we have never made any such claim or pledge. It is hard to imagine that the campaign is unaware of our publicly stated position on that point. Similarly, Americans for Prosperity is not simply “funded by the Koch brothers,” as you state — rather it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life. Further, our opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principles. Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market for over 50 years and they have consistently opposed policies that frustrate or subvert free markets, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was President.

If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them. But it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent.

This is not the first time that the President and his Administration have engaged in this sort of disturbing behavior. As far back as August, 2010, Austan Goolsbee, then the President’s chief economic advisor, made public comments concerning Koch’s tax status and falsely stated that the company did not pay income tax, which triggered a federal investigation into Mr. Goolsbee’s conduct that potentially implicated federal law against improper disclosure of taxpayer information. Last June, your colleagues sent fundraising letters disparaging us as “plotting oil men” bent on “misleading people” with “disinformation” in order to “smear” the President’s record. Those accusations were baseless and were made at the very same time the president was publicly calling for a more “civil conversation” in the country.

It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.
We agree with the President that civil discourse is an American strength. That is why it is troubling to see a national political campaign apparently target individual citizens and private companies for some perceived political advantage. I also hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.

Sincerely,
Philip Ellender
President, Government & Public Affairs
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC