Washington Post Claims "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats"

I usually like the stories of the Washington Post's climate reporter Juliet Eilperin -- but why isn't her article today titled "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Both Parties"? -- or even "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Republicans." So much for the so-called liberal bias of the Post.

She focuses at length on the cost of the climate plans of Clinton, Obama and the other Dems, but hardly talks about the benefits at all -- and never mentions the costs of inaction: catastrophic global warming.

She does quote Former House speaker Newt Gingrich who

said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on "litigation and regulation" could alienate voters, he said in an interview. "You can just calculate the costs," Gingrich said.

"Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme," he added. "A candidate who's anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs."

And she also writes:

"It's a huge issue. I've been stunned by this," said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who found in a May poll that energy independence and global warming were cited as America's most important domestic challenge by 29 percent of respondents, second only to health care. "I think this is a top-tier voting issue that has crossover appeal," Greenberg said.

So the piece has the wrong headline and the wrong emphasis and an incomplete argument, leaving readers with the idea that this is a politically riskier area than it in fact is.

I am not saying this is a can't-lose issue from a political perspective, especially if handled wrong, but it definitely isn't can't-win, especially if handled right -- as most of the Dems seem to be doing.

The Washington Post needs to do a better and fairer job covering the politics of this top-tier issue.

Originally posted here.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

Oh, I've got a comment on this'n, ok, climate
change, if you're going to talk about global
wawa, then you have to talk about energy, but
in a practical, commonsense way. Consider for
one minute our national way of getting from
one place to another: It involves operating
some type of piece of equipment, typically
a car, in many areas. If you wanna get there,
wherever 'there' is, chances are there's going
to be an engine turning. Call it your 'necessary
evil', but that's how we do bidness. Bush, in
one very candid and intelligent remark, stated
that "we are addicted to oil". Coming from
an oilman, that's a lot. Now the other side
of that is that we haven't really done much
about it in the way of a national conservation
effort, no return to the double-nickel etc.
There have been some advances made in the area
of biofuels, but for the most part, people keep
doing what they've been doing, I think.
According to some, somewhere between global
wawa and the oil war, this choo-choo train
is headed down a track that features a 'bridge
out' sign. That's debatable, I think things
will tend to continue on as they have, much
like decades past, but we'll keep having the
brown smog. Unless. Unless. Unless people
REALLY start hitting the science books, and
start really digging for those 'answers of
tomorrow'. Iceland, though, isn't screwing
around, and they're capitalizing on their
geothermal resources to generate electricity,
and has a national plan to, by 2050, discontinue
the use of fossil fuels. If I spoke icelandic,
I think I might like to go and see that kind
of motivation first-hand­...it's one thing
to see a problem, another to stand up and
do something about it that's going to amount
to a hill of ....

[realitytrumpsbull]

They spend more time on the political science
than they do on the actual science, maybe now
that GM and Ford are largely out of the real
estate business(whatinhell happened THERE?!?!?),
they can start work on a car that only weighs
about 2,800 lb. wet, and has the aerodynamic
characteristics necessary to achieve 40MPG.
Fire ALL the union people if you have to,
but get 'er done, and I'd like a light
truck version of that, please. Imagine a
1/2 ton truck that got 30MPG with a full bed, and didn't have satellite-guided floor mats...
keep the seats, just give me a milk crate.

[petey64]

Because Dems do not know how to take a firm stand on anything, it's all fluid to them, "more like squishy mud" to make a firm stand you must not be afraid to lose your elected seat and none of them have that it seems except for Leiberman.