In mid-May the Republicans launched a counter to West Virginia Blue called West Virginia Red.
The site launched Sunday and takes its name from West Virginia Blue, a site that features pieces on Democratic politics and progressive issues.
"I think all of us who are involved in political circles in West Virginia are very aware of West Virginia Blue," said Stauffer, who managed state Supreme Court candidate Beth Walker's unsuccessful campaign.
Beth Walker was a rightwinger who got major support from the Swiftboaters. Fortunately she was defeated, due in no small part to those of us who canvassed and campaigned for the state Democratic Party's unified campaign.
Now Stauffer is working on West Virginia Red trying to change the state party's infrastructure in a state dominated by Democrats who control the governor's mansion, four out of five Congressional seats, the State Senate, the House of Delegates, the elected offices of Agriculture Auditor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer. We've got our problems on the Democratic side and as big as they are they're molehills in comparison.
While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, plagiarism is not.
WVaBlue diarist Mary Jones discovered that a recent post from Stauffer contains sentences directly lifted and put in his post on cap and trade.
Here's Stauffer's post with the sentences lifted verbatim from the CBO and Cato struck out by diarist Mary Jones (see her diary for links to the original material):
Cap and Trade Cost = $12,000
June 9th, 2009 . by Roman Stauffer
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis last week that showed the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation making it’s way through Congress will cost the average family $12, 108.23 over ten years.
The $12,000 cost figures used is "known as the net present value." That’s the amount you would have to put in the bank today to fund future spending. The CBO estimate includes ten years of spending and tax collections.
This is only the cost estimated for the legislation. It does not take into account higher energy prices as a result of new regulations and mandates imposed by the government.
Under the provisions of Waxman-Markey, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs—one covering emissions of most types of greenhouse gases and one covering hydrofluorocarbons.
Both cap-and-trade programs would set a limit on total emissions for each year and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the emissions permitted under that cap.Some of those allowances would be auctioned by the federal government, and the remainder would be distributed at no charge.
So if you want to reduce greenhouse gasses, be prepared to pay the price. To some it may be worth it, to others it may not be. Where do you come down on it? Will passing Cap and Trade have very much of an impact if China and India don’t appear ready to cap their carbon emissions?
We've often criticized Republicans for not having new ideas. Seems like they can't come up with original material for their blogs either.
With a record like this, it's only a matter of days before The Washington Post offers Roman Stauffer an online column.
