Going Green May Cost Dems

Of the myriad issues that affect Americans in their every day lives, environmentalism is not among the top tier. Think of the things that affect your voting patterns--economy, terrorism (and the war against), taxes and health care are probably at the top of your list. If you have a good job, taxes are at a practical rate (never low enough in my opinion) and you have health care, you'll typically vote for the party that has given you these things.

Now what if a candidate said on the stump that he wants to institute changes that would cost you money in the short term, may have an adverse effect on the economy and could potentially lead to a sharp upturn in the unemployment rate so that we could see benefits in 30-years. Would you vote for that candidate? Of course you wouldn't and John Edwards is staking alot of his campaign on just such an approach:

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

"I'd be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation," Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. "No matter what the politics are, there's such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We've got to do it."

The problem that the Dems have on this issue is that the majority of the country does not consider global warming to the major issue the Democratic party as a whole does. In spite of the media onslaught these last five years and the constant echo of Al Gore's doomsday prophecies, the country doesn't buy into the fact that this is a settled issue. I've talked to global warmingist's who espouse the Gore rhetoric and when I ask them how they think they sell something that may never happen or may be occurring naturally while simultaneously speaking out against a real and present threat--Islamo-fascist terrorism--the get perplexed and stutter alot. They find it hard to believe that people would actually not believe global warming is a natural phenomenon and not man made as it is so deeply ingrained into the liberal psyche at this point.

The fact that the GOP candidates are ridiculing the donks says to me that their internal polling has shown clearly that it is not the issue the Democrat field wants or thinks it to be.

Edwards is a liberal masquerading as a populist. However, you will never win a presidential campaign by telling people that they have to cut back on electrical use, driving and will have to pay more to boot--especially when you live in a huge mansion and drive an SUV. Edwards is saying in an ambiguous way that you will be taxed for helping the environment even though it won't be referred to as such. That isn't going to fly.

As in WWII, the American public will sacrifice for a war, they will never sacrifice simply because Al Gore and John Edwards are constantly crying wolf.