Big Sky Cairn

Kudos to John Driscoll for being the only major ticket Democrat to fill out a Project Vote Smart survey.  Shame on Baucus and Schweitzer for hiding their views.

But more important than actually taking the survey is what he says in it.  Western Word had this run-down in the days after the surprise Primary.   There’s enough there to set him back to pasture - including supporting a tax increase for anyone making more than $12,000/year.

Well Driscoll is at it again - this time taking a candidate survey from the sacred clergy from Scientists & Engineers for America.  I think Driscoll must really enjoy filling out these surveys; it’s about all he does.  Anyway, here are some quoteables:

I favor taxation to internalize the full costs of an end use [of energy] to the end user.

There you have it.   He actually wants to tax energy use with the goal of increasing prices.  Gutsy position to take in todays energy climate.

I’m not convinced that monetizing pollution, or the lack of it, will address the challenges we all face. Direct regulation, using the police powers of our various nations, may be quickest and most effective.

Carbon police.  Literally.

Require universal metering at every level of water use, including precise measurement for irrigation. Provide resources and education in support of water conservation. Discourage use of plant species that require water not available in the natural local environment.

Against irrigation.  Sorry Eastern Montana.

One continuously improving result should build on wellness approaches to human health such as “stop smoking” and “exercise a few minutes each day.”

Nanny state meets Orwellian control.  Sorry liberty.

Anyway, the more this guy puts out, the more out of touch he demonstrates himself to be.  What’s terrifying is that the army of Obama zealots that may turn out in November may also blindly vote down-ticket and by some freak lapse of judgment elect this guy.

Just curious - since youse in favor of the Iraq war and all dat, how do youse propose we pay for it if not by taxation?

You guys are amazing for at once being anti-tax and pro-spend. It’s a political formula what has seriously harmed our nation.

Oh, Mark - I’m one of those annoying guys who would absolutely love for the Federal Government to cut spending in a lot of places that would result in me being accused of hating poor people, women, minorities, art, science, the environment, the handicapped, teachers, affordable housing, after school programming, public radio and television… and a zillion more.

Just show me where to vote for that.

Also, the good old USFG has plenty of money right now. They don’t need to raise taxes; they need to spend less and spend more efficiently.

Which specific programs do you want to eliminate in order to pay for the Iraq war? Let’s be putting it on the table.

No, Mark. I’m not going to play your game of faulty dilemmas. I support spending money in Iraq independent from cutting the lion’s share of federal programs.

That is to say, if the Iraq War ended tomorrow, I would still be in favor of cutting these programs - so your attempt to lead me into the “Cody supports killing babies instead of educating them” trap won’t work this time.

Which programs is the subject for a different post - since this one is about the craaaazy platform of your party’s nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives.

You would be an honest broker here if you said what you meant and meant what you said. But you’re not. 90% of what you really believe is hidden from view. In typical Randian fashion, your philosophy is so abhorrent that you either dress it up as something else or hide it.

Come clean. Which programs do you want to eliminate? Whose taxes do you want to eliminate? And why does war spending so appeal to you why domestic spending not?