Kimberly Strassel looks at the real reason “the debate is over,” as Al Gore likes to insist.

Why is it that the Obama administration can’t acknowledge the least accomplishments of the Bush administration?  This is prom-queen immaturity, and it’s not attractive. Read more about it at Commentary.

It is critical that the real story about our current healthcare problems are presented, and that the public understand exactly what can happen with a socialized plan. Our government, and in fact, most of the news media are refusing to discuss the downsides.

This video by the Cato Institute is a short point-by-point examination of the ABC “infomercial” that ran last week.

Al Gore is questioned about his connections with companies that will benefit from global warming legislation.  Interestingly enough, “who won” this exchange is largely a matter of point of view.  Some say Gore took the upper hand.

The Hill reports Congressman John Boehner, in justifying his one-man attempt at a filibuster of the House Climate Bill, referred to it as a “pile of s–t”, while also decrying the middle-of-the-night addition of 300 some pages to the bill which left members little to no time to read it.

We’re with Boehner. This is a bad bill, and the proof is the underhanded way in which it was pushed through.

How can Pelosi et al in the House Leadership, plus Rahm Emanuel possibly feel good about ramrodding a bill, which, if members were allowed to truly study it, would never pass? Their contempt for fellow house members and for the American citizen knows know bounds, apparently.

We contacted Joe Donnelly’s office in Washington earlier today to give him our opinion on the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade bill. We asked the staffer who answered the phone how Donnelly was leaning and she told me he was undecided.

How can this be? Our suspicion is that one of two political gambits are at work here.

One: Donnelly could be holding off his vote until he can vote with the obvious winning side. This way, he has political cover.

Two: Donnelly might be holding off so that he can vote “NO” (pleasing constituents) but only after being sure that it will pass anyway. This way, he has political cover.

Neither of these possibilities is particularly confidence inspiring. Shouldn’t he vote by weighing what’s right for the country and what his constituency is telling him?

Or is it possible Donnelly is truly not sure whether the bill is a good thing (it’s not) or a horrible job and economy killing monster (which it is)? It is this possibility that should worry us the most.

Update: The House of Representatives has passed Waxman-Markey, 219-212.  Donnelly voted “NO.”  Which leaves us with option two above.  He voted the way we wanted him to, but the timing points to political cover, not voting on the merits.  If the vote had been in trouble for the Democrats, we wonder if his vote would have been the same.  Had we not discoverd he was undecided only a few hours before the vote, we wouldn’t even be suspicious.  But we did, and we are. And we are terribly disappointed that the congress voted to do this to us.