Senators David Vitter and James Inhofe requested this report from the GAO to find out how much money the EPA spends defending itself against lawsuits.

The purpose, I’m sure, was to reinforce the rhetoric that “Big Green” wastes taxpayers money.

Here’s the rub: The report shows that 30% of lawsuits came from environmental groups while almost 50% came from business and industry.

The Washington Times is competent enough to mention this fact and explore it a bit whilst railing against “Big Green” but Senator Vitter keeps plugging away like a child with his hands over his ears saying “Na na na I can’t hear you!”

“The GAO report shows that taxpayers have been on the hook for years while ‘Big Green’ trial lawyers have raked in millions of dollars suing the government,” said Vitter. “Even worse, because of sloppy record keeping by the EPA and other agencies and a lack of cooperation by the Justice Department, we’re not even sure how bad the problem really is. This is unacceptable and I’m going to continue working to demand greater transparency.”

Senator Inhofe sort of acknowledged that the facts don’t quite match the rhetoric when he says:

Today’s GAO report is the tip of the iceberg as we work to get to the bottom of just how many taxpayer dollars are going to pay attorneys’ fees in environmental suits.

The rhetoric is disingenuous and, while I’m not surprised, I am saddened.

It’s “Big Green” vs. Industry/Business. The battlefield is the EPA and the courts. Certainly, there is a lot of money spent on these battles but that’s how the system works. It would be one thing if the Senators wanted to somehow improve the system to spend less money on the balance between the Environment and the Economy. This, however, is clearly not the case. They are merely fighting on the side of Industry/Business under the guise of doing what’s right for America.

I wish that wasn’t the case.

It’s come to the attention of this reporter that the Rapture is, in fact, going to occur.

Documents leaked earlier today describe how a bi-partisan team of Senators, dubbed the Gang of 14, working closely with President Obama have developed and set into motion a plan to save Humankind – FROM GOD!

It seems a heretofore unreleased portion of the Apocryphal manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, brought to the President’s attention by a Muslim scholar studying in Jerusalem, clearly and believably lay out God’s rapture plans. In all likelihood the Rapture will occur on May 21.

The plan developed involves the US Space Shuttle Endeavor and it is very clever. The budget crisis? TARP? The deficit? Nothing is what it seems. All the money spent by the US government in the past two years has been on outfitting Endeavor for it’s last and most important mission.

Endeavor is currently docked at the International Space Station, packed like Noah’s Ark with plants, animals and people – ready in a moments notice to speed away toward Gliese 581g. Upon their arrival on this Earth-like planet they will begin “seeding” it with Life, effectively saving Humankind.

The shuttle has been modified with upgrades such as an FTL drive to get us there fast and advanced weaponry in the event that Gliese 581g is already blessed with Life. All the partisan bickering and childish behavior from inside the beltway lately has been a distraction to keep the electorate busy while our government saves life as we know it.

Russ Feingold, who continues to lead the Gang of 14 despite being ousted from the Senate last year, said yesterday “If God wants a fight we’ll give him a fight.” John McCain, standing behind him looking grim but resolved, nodded his head in agreement. “As a conservative I don’t like this,” he said, “but as an American I have a duty to my country to ensure that God doesn’t destroy the way of life of everyone left behind.”

This reporter says “God speed Endeavor!” and also “Thank you Mr. President and the Gang of 14. I’ll be thinking of your bravery and cunning as I and my family are swallowed up by the hot lava of God.”

It seems to be a question that’s popping up a lot lately, and the simple answer is: they don’t know how to stop it.

Of course they have the authority. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 gives Obama all the authority he needs to take over the spill if need be. But the government just isn’t prepared to respond. And so we have to rely on private companies like BP to clean up their own mess.

Basically, this isn’t a situation like Katrina where we could easily evacuated people or made sure they had clean water to drink and food to eat. Deep water oil spills are special beasts and, unfortunately, only the people who cause them can apparently fix them.

Here’s more from CNN:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who previously threatened a government takeover of the mission, made clear Monday that BP must be involved in trying to stop the leaking oil.

“There are areas where BP and the private sector are the ones who must continue to lead the efforts with government oversight, such as a deployment of private sector technology 5,000 feet below the ocean surface to kill the well,” Salazar said Monday. “BP and the private sector, with the help of federal scientists, are the ones who must get that problem solved and we have the oversight capacity in the administration to make sure that they are doing that.”

In addition, the administration’s point man on the spill response, Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen, said Monday that BP’s strategies were endorsed by other top oil company executives and he would advise against any shift from BP’s continued involvement.

“They have the means of production,” Allen said at a White House news conference. “They have the logistics in place. They have the ROVs [remotely operated vehicles] that are down there. We are jointly operating in their command post out of Houston [Texas]. Everybody that has a stake in the fight is there. And I am satisfied with the coordination that’s going on.”

By the way, even Republicans admit that the government is essentially powerless in this fight…

“They can fire BP and take it over,” Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.” “But the truth is, the federal government probably doesn’t have the capacity to do that.”

And why don’t we “have the capacity to do that?” Oh…could it be that we’ve trusted private enterprises too much with our safety?

Wonder where those ideas came from…

Do know that after these wells are finally capped and the oil has stopped leaking…we should ALL demand that the government now know how to do this themselves. Because the fact that we don’t have the equipment or know how to do this right now is crazy, especially given how much of a threat these leaks pose.

More as it develops…

Previous worst case scenarios estimated the spill to be pumping 2M gallons of oil a day into the gulf, but new numbers paint a much darker picture.

Here’s how the two leaks shake out…

Leak A: 70,000 barrels a day +
Leak B: 25,000 barrels a day =
95,000 barrels a day

One barrel of oil is roughly 42 gallons of oil…so 95,000 x 42 = 3,990,000 gallons of oil…PER DAY!

Now…let’s remember that this has been going on a month now. That means that nearly 120,000,000 gallons of oil has contaminated the Gulf since this all began.

Let me repeat that…120 MILLION GALLONS OF OIL!

You know how much the Exxon Valdez spilled? 11 million.

So this spill is already 10 times worse than the worst oil spill in our nation’s history.

And next week…hurricane season starts.

More as it develops…

Ironically, the star of Waterworld (which I like…by the way) might be just the guy to help save the water in the Gulf of Mexico.

Check out the nifty gadget he and his brother has been funding the development of (to the tune of $15M) for the past 15 years. Apparently, it can remove between 99 and 97 percent of the oil from the water.

So the demonstration is obviously on a very small scale, but the larger versions can collect 3,000 gallons of oil a day…and there are 31 machines available. So you’re looking at 93K gallons of oil being pulled out of the Gulf by these machines per day, and that’s significant.

And here’s the thing…apparently BP thinks so. Because they’re going to use the devices to help with the cleanup.

More as it develops…

A leaked document tells a sobering tale of 10x the amount we thought was escaping the ocean floor before…

“The following is not public,” reads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Emergency Response document dated April 28. “Two additional release points were found today in the tangled riser. If the riser pipe deteriorates further, the flow could become unchecked resulting in a release volume an order of magnitude higher than previously thought.”

Asked Friday to comment on the document, NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said that the additional leaks described were reported to the public late Wednesday night. Regarding the possibility of the spill becoming an order of magnitude larger, Smullen said, “I’m letting the document you have speak for itself.”

In scientific circles, an order of magnitude means something is 10 times larger. In this case, an order of magnitude higher would mean the volume of oil coming from the well could be 10 times higher than the 5,000 barrels a day coming out now. That would mean 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day. It appears the new leaks mentioned in the Wednesday release are the leaks reported to the public late Wednesday night.

“There is no official change in the volume released but the USCG is no longer stating that the release rate is 1,000 barrels a day,” continues the document, referred to as report No. 12. “Instead they are saying that they are preparing for a worst-case release and bringing all assets to bear.”

Also, the following graphic shows what we’re looking at in the immediate future…and there’s no doubt that it’ll be devastating to Louisiana and Florida fishermen.

All we can do now is hope that we can get this under control before it destroys the natural habits of our southeastern coastal region for decades.

Hey, if he’s right, shame on them. Well, more than shame on them. They should spend their lives in prison for all of the destruction they’ve caused.

But for some reason…I don’t think folks who have spent their lives defending the environment would deliberately cause one of the worst environmental disasters in our lifetime just to get legislation passed that they felt was inherently compromised.

Call it a hunch.

In any event…the Rush…

I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. … Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Yeah, just noting the timing…sure…

Seems like the right wing is trading in many conspiracy theories these days and none of them have any validity whatsoever. But that doesn’t stop them from making them and trying to convince their followers that they should always question everything except what they say.

By the way, genuine props to Sarah Palin for her post about this tragedy. It was a serious response to what happened and regardless of her “drill baby drill” attitude, I applaud the seriousness with which she addressed this situation.

The equivalent of 5,000 barrels of oil are being dumped into the gulf…every…single…day.

Folks, we’re looking at a disaster bigger than Exxon Valdez. It’s that serious. And that could have devastating effects on our economy.

From Fox News:

The shrimp season begins in early May, as the shrimp move from estuaries out to sea, Long said. U.S. landings of shrimp were valued at $441.8 million in 2008 — an increase of $9.1 million compared to 2007. Louisiana leads the nation in its shrimp supply — with 89 million pounds produced in 2008 — followed by Texas, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. [...]

The Gulf states play host to tourists from around the world, and industry officials acknowledge that the spill could have a massive economic impact.

In states like Florida, where tourism is a $65.5 billion industry, and Alabama, which brings in $6 billion, officials are closely monitoring any changes in hotel bookings and travel plans.

And so it goes…

Everyone has one. The one piece of technology that makes it official for you that you’re living in the future. Whether it’s a Roomba vacuum, Skype, the iPhone or something else – there’s something floating around in your mind that, when you see it in real life, you’ll know you’ve reached the future.

For me it’s cloud ships that look like this:

When this flotilla (1500+) of wind-powered spew ships is complete and I can watch them bellow sea water and (presumably) fish guts into the sky, I will have reached the future. One can only hope that the accordion-like stacks will crouch lower and lower as the pressure builds until BOOM! A new cloud is born … to reflect the sun … so the Earth doesn’t get warm.

Clouds are good. Let’s make more.

TIMES crunches the numbers and comes up with some encouraging data…

The initial data released by Department of Transportation, however, shows that so far cash for clunkers has been a green success. The clunkers averaged 15.8 m.p.g., compared with 25.4 m.p.g. for the new vehicles purchased, for an average fuel-economy increase of 61%.

On the whole, American drivers are trading in inefficient trucks and SUVs for much more efficient passenger cars. Car manufacturers like Nissan are already retooling some models to improve their fuel economy so they can qualify for the credits.

But they rightly points out the potential pitfall in this situation…

It’s called the efficiency paradox: as we get more efficient at using energy — through less wasteful cars and appliances — the overall cost of energy goes down, but we respond by using more of it. In the case of cars, that means driving more. Ultimately our gas bill stays the same, but we spend more time on the road and pump the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. The earth isn’t any better off.

This is one reason why it makes sense to have gas at a fixed cost that doesn’t go below that. Car makers have long be clamoring for this because without it the CAFE standards that the government sets don’t push people to buy the more fuel efficient cars if gas is cheap.

Is raising the fuel prices to a set level next on the Dems’ agenda? If not, should it be?

A new website for the controversial, popular program is up and it includes some things you need to know if you’d like to take advantage.

• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
• You don’t need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
• The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

So what are your thought about the program? Will you take advantage of it?

Thanks to Justin and company for welcoming me on here as a regular contributor. I will be posting on a number of issues, but one area you can expect that I will regularly be tracking is technology related developments and how they interact with the political world and policy. I also live less than ten miles from the Nebraska/Iowa border, so I’ll try to keep an eye on 2012 developments as the contenders test the waters there as well, on top of other interests like election reform, social issues, polling analysis and any number of things that I come across while skimming the hundreds of tweets and RSS feeds I go through every day. I hope you enjoy it, and now… on with the show!

We’ve been hearing about cellulosic ethanol for several years now, generally with the caveat that were at least a few years, and a few scientific breakthroughs, away from it coming to market and helping wean us from foreign oil. Unlike corn, which breaks down into the sugars necessary to be processed into ethanol relatively easily, cellulose is a hardy material that takes time and energy to break down. Its upside is that there happens to be more cellulose present than any other organic molecule on the planet. This is why millions upon millions of dollars has been poured into cellulosic ethanol research, genetically modifying naturally occurring enzymes to break it down faster and looking for ways to bring the price per gallon down closer to the price of gasoline.

Unlike corn, which takes land out of food production, is inefficient as far as how much energy it takes to produce and is a high maintenance crop, finding raw material for a cellulosic plant is easy. Wood chips from sawmills, the kudzu scourge spreading through the hot and humid Southeast, agricultural waste and even up to 80 percent of what ends up in our landfills could be used to make cellulosic ethanol.  Thankfully, the millions of dollars in research and development have begun to bear fruit.

A gas station near Ottawa is the first in the world to begin selling a cellulosic blend, called CE-10, to the public. Iogen, the company behind the demonstration plant that produced the fuel, plans to build its first full scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Saskatchewan. It has reached an agreement with the local government and Royal Dutch Shell to convert an old Mill site to their purposes, with the government even agreeing to purchase any green energy produced at the site. The running demonstration plant only has the capacity to produce about 3 million liters of ethanol each year, using wheat straw agricultural waste, while the new plant will be able to pump out about 75 million liters. It will make use of a more diverse feed stock, including agricultural waste from other crops, grasses native to nearby areas and even wood chips from area mills.

The march of progress continues, with a number of large companies making big investments into these technologies. Last year GM purchased a large share of Coskata, a big player in the emerging cellulosic ethanol industry, who claims to have developed a process that simplefies the complex and costly process of breaking down cellulose and brings the cost of production down to being competitive with gasoline. There are as many as two dozen companies with plans to build plants similar to Iogen’s, but the economic downturn is effecting their ability to finance these projects. Coskata is hoping to get some stimulus money, in the form of loan guarantees, to help finance its plant, with an estimated production of 50-100 million gallons a year.

As President Obama often says, if we intend to be a leader in the green energy industry of tomorrow, we need to move boldly in that direction today. Now is not the time to let companies who wish to lead us in there falter because of financing problems. Some are talking about a new stimulus bill, which most people reasonably see as a terrible idea, that would focus on these kinds of projects and job creation. The first should have done so, and I have little confidence that a new one would make it through congress without being similarly unfocused and pork laden.

We don’t get too many of these chances, where we can kill three birds with one stone. Job creation, independence from foreign oil and environmental progress can all be had with some smart funding priorities. Lets hope the administration recognizes this in time.

Congressional Republicans have been telling voters that the cap and trade energy policy that’s set for a vote on Friday will cost each household about $3,100.

CBO puts the lie to those numbers and shows that they’re nearly 20 times the actual costs…in 2020.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.

“The net annual economy wide cost of the cap and trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion, or about $175 per household,” the CBO, which gives Congress nonpartisan advice about the impact of legislation under consideration, said in an analysis delivered to Congress late on Friday.

And that’s just the average price. These costs would be distributed differently based on incomes…

Low-income households would see an average net benefit of $40, mostly through rebates and other aid, while high-income families could see added net costs of $245 per year in 2020.

Think high-income families can afford an additional $245 a year so we can move much closer to energy independence?

Moving on…

This is an extreme example, but I can’t help but think car companies can easily hit the 35 MPG mileage standards Obama is about to lay out if the following is possible for a street ready car.

From Green Car:

Volkswagen’s CEO, Martin Winterkorn recently confirmed the company is working on a car that will get 235 mpg (1 liter per 100 kilometers) fuel economy. In 2002, VW showed its 1-Liter concept car that achieved 264 mpg (0.89L/100km). The project was cancelled in 2005 but VW has now revived it. How real is this? VW now says a limited production car could be offered by 2010.

The VW 1-Liter, developed in a wind tunnel, has a very narrow and very flat body configuration that necessitated tandem seating for the two occupants. Measuring in at 4.1 feet wide, 11.4 feet long, and just over 3 feet tall, the car features an amazing drag coefficient of just 0.159…even more wind-cheating than the slippery GM EV1 electric car’s 0.19 Cd. With its 235 mpg fuel economy, it can travel 400 miles on its 1.7 gallon fuel tank…all the while achieving a 75 mph top speed.

The future of cars is small and lightweight. Bet on it.

On my final day at the Offshore Technology Conference, I attended a panel on climate change. Now, you might expect an oil and gas industry convention would prefer not to discuss the effects of CO2 emissions. But the panel included three scientists who all gave mini-lectures intended to convince the audience that global warming is underway and that it’s the direct result of human activity. The word of the day was “unequivocal.”

If you are the type to believe serious scientists aren’t part of some global leftist conspiracy, the data is quite convincing. However, the panel suffered from a lack of credible skepticism. The only panel member who doubted the “unequivocal” nature of the conclusions was a man named Carl Langner, a climate change hobbyist(for lack of a better word). Not only was he a last minute addition to the panel and thus without a nifty PowerPoint presentation, he also lacked a scientific background, making his remarks easy to discount.

Now, I’m sure a lot of people would say there is no such thing as credible skepticism on this issue because, they would argue, any skepticism is based on corrupt self interest or ignorance. Problem is, there are a lot of people who reject the scientific conclusions, such as Gateway Pundit, who also attended the session this morning and came away convinced the panel was nothing more than global warming religionists.

So how do we move forward? Well, with the Democrats solidly in control, skeptics will likely be pushed aside. But, really, the skeptics’ fixation on proving the science false is just a symptom of the greater issue — namely that a lot of people are concerned that action to reduce CO2 emissions will drastically harm our economy without any serious benefit to the climate.

If those who support combating global warming could drop the moralizing and adopt a “how can we do this without harming business” attitude, we might find more common ground. It’s fine for the President and others to talk about creating “Green jobs,” but we have to make sure we’re not sacrificing the jobs we actually have now for one’s which we may or may not have later.

The science may indeed be unequivocal, but our next step is still up for debate. We can’t let our fear of a warmer world lead us to take rash action. We must balance the total cost, weighing quality of life, employment, economic viability and our climate. We should take action. But we need to make sure it’s the right action.

Today at the Offshore Technology Conference (which I am at on sponsorship by the American Petroleum Institute), I attended a panel discussion titled: The Case for Access to Oil and Gas Resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. As the title and graphic to my post probably reveal, the panel was less reasonable than the one I attended yesterday.

Let me say, first of all, I support exploration of the outer continental shelf. It’s been nearly 30 years since anyone has done oil and gas surveying and we need to know how much hydrocarbons are recoverable in the waters off our Eastern and Western seaboards. Exploration should be a no-brainer — we’re going to need oil and gas for many years to come, no matter how fast we ramp up renewable energy sources.

All that said, I was put-off by the anti-environmentalist (as distinct from anti-environmental) attitude of the panel. There seemed to be a general perception that if the environmentalists just got out of the way, the oil and gas companies would take care of things in the best possible way. The situation devolved to a point where one member of the audience accused characters like Dora the Explorer of “indoctrinating” our youth — and no one on the panel seemed to disagree.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no reasonable link between teaching children to conserve and recycle (as Dora does) and the issues surrounding OCS exploration and drilling. The panelists consistently said we need to find common ground, and yet they often had no problem lumping positive environmentalism with the kind of short-sighted, anti-oil crusades being waged by some of the less intellectually honest members of the left. You can’t say you want engagement on the issue (as these industry leaders say they want) and then act like Dora the Explorer is some leftist plot to ruin our future.

I know those on the panel and in the audience were just voicing their frustrations in a closed environment. In the real world, I imagine they are more willing to interact with their Green counterparts. However, I don’t think progress can be achieved so long as oil and gas interests see themselves as some kind of victim. Yes, we need to explore and drill in areas previously off limits. We have the clean technology and high-end machinery capable of making such efforts efficient and of minimal impact to the environment. But if the oil and gas industry wants to convince the majority of Americans of this necessity, they need to be able to separate positive environmentalism with ill-informed obstructionism.

There should be a common ground solution to our future energy needs. But both sides need to move away from demonization.

From today through mid-week, I’m in Houston attending the Offshore Technology Conference. I’m here on the sponsorship of the American Petroleum Institute which has brought in a cadre of bloggers, presumably to help generate coverage and discussion of petroleum issues. Since I believe energy and climate change policy will be some of the most important debates we have over the coming years, I wanted to take this opportunity to delve deeper into the issue.

This morning, I attended a panel focused on meeting our energy challenges. The panelists included an array of wonks, consumer groups, politicians and industry leaders. Going in, I was wary I might be subjected to a bunch of spin. But the group managed to present some very reasonable arguments, concerns and ideas about our nation’s energy policies.

Jason Grumet, who is the Executive Director of the National Commission on Energy Policy and who advised President Obama during the campaign, set the tone with his assertion that in order to move forward, we must first “move beyond the debate careening between ANWR and Kyoto.” Roger Ballentine of the Progressive Policy Institute also pushed this idea, stating that energy policy has become too politicized and we can’t afford to have two sides who talk past each other.

Needless to say, this kind of post-partisan rhetoric caught my attention. As did the statement by Marvin Odum, president of the Shell Oil Company, that he supports cap and trade. That came with the caveat that the policy be “done right,” (i.e. with safeguards to prevent shocking the economy), but in my naiveté, I assumed an oil company would be reflexively against measures such as CO2 cap and trade.

In fact, throughout the nearly three hour discussion, I heard wide agreement that we need to focus on both climate change AND energy policy — and separating the two and picking sides will only prevent anything from being achieved.

In the face of the current financial crisis, we easily forget that a year ago, we were all talking about $4 gasoline. While those costs have fallen dramatically, we’d be foolish to think our problems are resolved. We need a multi-pronged approach to addressing our future energy needs: conservation, alternative energy sources and, yes, more exploration.

Over the next few days I’ll be reporting on and discussing all of these. Check back in.

Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?