“If I make a faith-related comment, I usually quote from the Bible, often from the Old Testament,” Pawlenty told Christianity Today. “I remind people that our country is founded under God, and the founders thought that was an important perspective. I watch my tone so I don’t get judgmental or angry about issues. I try to express myself in ways that are measured and appropriate and hopefully civil and positive. Lastly, I try not to say that God is on my side, but I strive to be on God’s side.”

Christianity Today’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey asked him, “Your book encourages Christians to be involved in public issues. At what point might Christians rely too much on political solutions to current problems?”

Pawlenty responded, “I started with the perspective of someone who says that faith is separate from public law and public service; it really isn’t. We have, as a country, a founding perspective that we’re founded under God; our founding documents reference and acknowledge God, and acknowledge that our rights and privileges come from our Creator.”

Despite that claim, the United States Constitution makes no reference to a creator or God. The Declaration of Independence merely refers to a creator and to “Nature’s God.”

In the interview, the magazine also asked about Bachmann and Sarah Palin. “You seem to get comparisons to Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachmann,” the interviewer stated.

“[A comparison to] Sarah Palin, of course, is a compliment,” Pawlenty responded. “She’s a force of nature, she’s kind of in a league of her own when it comes to attention and the media’s focus on her so far. I don’t know if she’s going to run or not, but I think she’s a remarkable leader. I know Congresswoman Bachmann, I campaigned for her, I consider her a friend and I have a positive and good relationship with her as well. Voters will have to choose the style of who they want representing the party as a nominee.”

Pawlenty was also asked about cap and trade, a policy he once backed.

“During your term as governor, you supported reductions in greenhouse gases and a regional cap and trade plan,” Bailey asked. “What measures should the federal government support to care for the environment?”

“All of us should be in favor of reducing pollution, but we need to do that in a way that doesn’t wreck the economy. I came to the conclusion after looking at it very carefully that cap and trade is the wrong approach. I think it is a ham-fisted approach that is government-centered and top down, and the burdens it would have visited on the economy were unwise and really unbearable.”

In 2007, he thought cap and trade was great.

“If you unleash the requirements and incentives and attractive features of a market, people will respond to it,” he told Minnesota Public Radio. “Some will respond by reducing pollution directly. Others will respond by buying credits or offsets in the marketplace, with the ultimate same net effect.”

Though he doesn’t specifically mention cap-and-trade or climate science, he said he would work to overturn President Obama’s “job-killing policies” and ensure there is oversight for “every program.”

In the letter, which makes Upton’s candidacy for the committee chairmanship official, Upton tells his fellow Republicans that he:

WILL work with all the members of our Conference as one team;
WILL pass legislation to repeal ObamaCare;
WILL conduct rigorous oversight of every program, budget, regulation and agency
within our jurisdiction;
WILL aggressively cut spending by adopting new Committee rules to foster spending
cuts and eliminate government programs; and
WILL protect the sanctity of human life by rigorous oversight and passing legislation
to permanently ensure that no federal funds go toward abortion, including:  Rep. Joe
Pitts’ Protect Life Act and Rep. Chris Smith’s No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

But the letter does not lay out an energy agenda, nor does it address climate change. The letter is the latest effort by Upton to talk up his conservative credentials, amid criticism by some Republicans that he’s too moderate. In fact, some conservatives have even criticized Upton for his support for phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient ones.

But there was some good news for Upton today. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, voiced his support for Upton in a story this afternoon. “I know Upton quite well. He’s not as conservative as I am,” he wrote. “But he is especially well suited to be chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. On the issues the committee will take up, he is conservative. Republicans shouldn’t let a silly light bulb bill keep him from becoming chairman.”

Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) are also hoping to get the chairmanship.

Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said the vote was done by “acclamation,” or voice vote, and there was no opposition. A spokesperson for Manchin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Politico reported yesterday that Manchin might not support Reid for majority leader.

The NRSC’s statement underscores the precarious position Manchin has put himself in. Manchin, the former governor of West Virginia, ran against President Obama’s agenda, criticizing the health care and cap-and-trade bills. Now that Manchin is a full-fledged member of the Senate, it appears that Republicans won’t be shy to highlight those instances when Manchin votes with the majority. In fact, the statement even calls Manchin “liberal.”

Senate Democrats voted today to keep Reid on as majority leader. Here is the rest of the Senate Democrat’s leadership, via Reid’s office:

Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore
As President pro tempore, Senator Inouye will continue to provide the Democratic Caucus leadership and experience gained from a lifetime of public service.

Dick Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
As Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Durbin will continue to serve as the Majority Leader’s key aide on and off the floor, helping to lead the Democrats’ fight to protect America and help working families get ahead.

Charles E. Schumer, Vice Chair of the Conference and Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee
The third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, Senator Schumer will continue to oversee strategy and policy to keep and build support for Democratic values.  He will also coordinate messaging for the caucus and help integrate legislative- and message-crafting function into a central, coordinated entity that encompasses policy, media and politics.

Patty Murray, Secretary of the Conference
As Secretary of the Conference, Senator Murray will continue to play a critical role in helping shape and set the Democratic agenda while working with Senators Reid and Durbin to move that agenda through the Senate floor.

Debbie Stabenow, Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee

Senator Stabenow will continue to help guide the Senate Democratic caucus’ messaging and strategy efforts.

Mark Begich, Chair of Steering and Outreach Committee
Senator Begich will serve as Chair of the Steering and Outreach Committee.  In his role as chair, Senator Begich will engage Democratic Senators and community leaders across the country in an active dialogue about the pressing issues facing our nation.

It’s clear that Upton, who has the 12th best lifetime League of Conservation Voters score among Republicans, is being forced to underscore his conservative credentials to land the top spot on the committee.

In an editorial yesterday, the Examiner criticized Upton for voting for a land management bill that restricted access to federal lands for oil and gas leasing and for voting “no” on a bill to cut the EPA’s funding, among other things. “Upton’s claims of being a Reaganite notwithstanding, there is nothing in his voting record to suggest he would be an aggressive opponent of Obama’s plan to impose cap-and-trade through regulation,” the editorial said. On top of that, the editorial criticizes Upton for being “Democrats’ favorite Republican” to succeed the current chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

The Examiner also ran a story yesterday on Republican efforts to block the EPA and repeal parts of the health care law. In it, Upton said, “The bottom line, particularly if I am chairman, is we’re not going to allow them to regulate what they cannot legislate.” It’s that comment that Upton’s office highlighted in an email to reporters.

Upton is widely considered to be the frontrunner for the chairmanship of the committee. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is also interested in the position, but he must be granted permission to waive the GOP rule limiting congressmen to three terms as the top Republican on a committee. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) is also interested in the chairmanship.

Shimkus and Upton, in interviews this week by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, signaled they would target White House climate and energy policy coordinator Carol Browner if they become chairman.

Upton said he would subpoena Browner to testify before the committee, and Shimkus said he would work to “defund” Browner and all of the other so-called policy czars, who were appointed and not subject to Senate approval.

With cap-and-trade all but dead, President Obama has decided to focus on energy provisions that can garner Republican support. This includes some things that environmentalists love, like energy efficiency and electric vehicles legislation. But it also includes natural gas and nuclear power, which make environmentalists shudder.

Some environmentalists and clean energy advocates have been more open minded about natural gas. The Center for American Progress has called it a “bridge fuel.” But overall, expanding the country’s reliance on natural gas isn’t ideal for the environmental community. In order to access vast shale gas reserves, for example, the natural gas industry injects chemicals and huge quantities of water into the ground.

Obama’s comments about natural gas this week at his post-midterm press conference did not go unnoticed by the natural gas industry. The Hill noted today that an Exxon executive touted his remarks on the company’s website today. “I hope that lawmakers from both sides are listening to the president’s words, so that the U.S. can reap the benefits of natural gas for decades to come,” Ken Cohen, of Exxon, wrote.

On nuclear, it’s a similar story. Environmentalists and clean energy advocates have long blasted nuclear power as too expensive and they’ve pointed to long permitting delays at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At the same time, they’ve raised the specter of the nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island to underscore the potential danger of the power source.

According to Johnson, “45 of 97 Republican freshmen and 85 of 166 reelected Republicans are confirmed climate zombies. There are no Republican freshmen, in the House or Senate, who admit the science is real.”

At the same time, Johnson says there are only four Republicans in the House “who publicly admit that global warming pollution is real.”

What does this all mean? Well, at the end of the day it’s further evidence that, as I reported yesterday, it’s going to be an uphill battle in the Congress to pass significant energy legislation. While the House has already passed a climate bill and we’ve know for quite some time that cap-and-trade won’t pass the Senate any time soon, it seems more likely now that less controversial proposals — like a renewable energy standard and an oil spill response bill in the Senate — will face difficulty gaining enough votes for passage.

Judging by Obama’s remarks on compromise yesterday, it looks like lawmakers are going to start with the lowest-hanging fruit. Yesterday, I wrote about a number of issues where Republicans and Democrats may be able to find consensus on climate and energy.

At a press conference today at the National Press Club, the heads of the major environmental groups stressed to reporters that the midterm election was not a “referendum” on climate change.

As I noted in my story this morning, in total, more than 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans. The two most stinging defeats, and the ones cited in most energy-related stories on the issue (including mine), were those of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who worked furiously behind the scenes to secure benefits for his coal-dependent state in the bill before finally giving his “yes” vote, and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who became something of a celebrity on the left for standing by the more liberal wing of his party on a number of key votes, including cap-and-trade, despite the conservative makeup of his district.

But cap-and-trade proponents counter that 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats and point out that many other issues were at play in the races.

At the press conference today, the environmental groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Environment America and the League of Conservation Voters — also released a poll surveying 1,000 voters in 83 “battleground” congressional districts that they say “clearly illustrates that members’ support for the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) did not contribute to this defeat.”

In the poll, Republican voters were asked to name their biggest concern with the Democrat running in the race. While 27 percent chose voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) agenda, only 7 percent said it was because the Democrat supported the House cap-and-trade bill when offered a list of six options.

In polling results conducted in Perriello’s district, only 5 percent of the people who voted for Hurt said their biggest concern was Perriello’s vote for the House cap-and-trade bill.

The environmentalists also touted California voters’ rejection of Proposition 23, which would have suspended the state’s landmark climate change law. They said California was the only state where climate change was on the ballot and therefore was the only case where the votes could be a referendum on climate change.

There was no mention at the press conference of California’s Proposition 26, which would require that any new fees imposed on industry be approved by a two-thirds vote in the state legislature. The ballot initiative, which passed, could greatly impact the implementation of the states climate law, environmentalists have said.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), a strong supporter of climate legislation, lost his re-election bid on Tuesday. (Andrew Shurtleff/ZUMApress.com)

After a year of frustration in the Senate for environmentalists and climate activists, a slowly building expectation that it would be nearly impossible to pass significant climate legislation in the chamber in the near future appears to have been cemented last night.

[Environment1] One of the few bright spots for Democrats in the midterms was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) come-from-behind win over Tea Party darling Sharron Angle. The big question going forward, however, is what will can and will Reid do on energy and climate legislation next Congress. It will be next to impossible to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next two years, but it appears Reid will focus on a series of low-hanging-fruit provisions that are popular on both sides of the aisle, including bills to incentivize electric vehicles, improve energy efficiency and weatherize homes.

The fate of two big-ticket items for environmentalists — a renewable energy standard and a much-delayed oil spill response bill — remains unclear. While there’s still time in the lame-duck session to try to pass both provisions, Republicans have more incentive to block the bills until January, when they’ll have more policy-making clout. There is some Republican support for an RES, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar. But GOP gains in the Senate could make it more likely that Republicans will push to add nuclear power and coal with carbon capture technology to the mix, a nightmare scenario for environmentalists.

It’s even less clear what will happen with the oil spill response bill. More than six months after the massive Gulf oil spill, Congress has yet to pass significant legislation to overhaul offshore drilling. (On the regulatory side, the Interior Department has issued its own new drilling rules). A number of contentious issues, like oil companies’ liability for damages from a spill, are sure to take on new significance now that more Republicans are in the Senate.

And it there was bad news for some House Democrats who voted for the chamber’s cap-and-trade bill. The two most stinging defeats were those of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who worked furiously behind the scenes to secure benefits for his coal-dependent state in the bill before finally giving his “yes” vote, and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who became something of a celebrity on the left for standing by the more liberal wing of his party on a number of key votes, including cap-and-trade, despite the conservative makeup of his district. Boucher lost to his Republican Morgan Griffith, and Perriello, despite a big last-minute push by environmentalists and President Obama himself, fell to state Sen. Robert Hurt (R).

Politico ran the numbers this morning. At least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids, while at least seven won, with some races still too close to call. In total, more than 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans. Cap-and-trade proponents are already pushing back against the notion that the losses are a “referendum” on cap-and-trade, noting that 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats and pointing out that many other issues were at play in the races.

While the House Republican energy agenda, led by presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (D-Ohio), was unclear as of this morning, an energy proposal introduced last year by House Republicans gives some hints at GOP priorities. Expect a great deal of discussion about expanding nuclear power. The House Republican bill calls for bringing 100 new nuclear power plants online in the next 20 years and streamlining the approval process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At the same time, the bill calls on the NRC to continue its review of the embattled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository “without political interference,” a clear reference to the Obama administration’s efforts to prevent the site from accepting waste.

The bill also calls for expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic. (This bill, of course, was introduced before the oil spill, so it remains to be seen how it would change as a result of the disaster). House Republicans would then use revenue from increased drilling to create a fund for renewable and “alternative” energy technology like wind, solar, so-called clean coal and biomass.

The proposal also calls for “cutting red tape and reducing frivolous lawsuits.” This includes curtailing environmental reviews and limiting the review time allowed in environmental lawsuits.

In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, managed to eke out a victory over Republican John Raese. While Democrats can technically put Manchin in their column, he campaigned against nearly every significant Obama administration policy, including cap-and-trade. In one now-infamous ad, he shot the House climate bill with a rifle.

But there was some good news for environmentalists last night. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, won her re-election bid against Carly Fiorina. Boxer has always been a strong advocate for environmental protections, but her job is likely to get harder in the next Congress. She has already been accused of unwillingness to reach across the aisle, but with more Republicans in the Senate, she’ll have no choice if she wants to pass energy and climate bills.

In other key midterm results, Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative that would suspend the state’s landmark climate change law, failed. It’s a huge win for environmentalists, who funneled millions of dollars into the “No on Prop 23? campaign, pitting themselves against two Texas oil refiners that campaigned heavily for passage of the initiative. California’s climate law is viewed by environmentalists as the gold standard. Passage of the ballot initiative would have been the icing on the cake of a disappointing year for climate activists.

At the same time, it looks like another California ballot initiative, Proposition 26, will pass. The measure would require a two-thirds majority vote in the state legislature and in local government bodies to impose new fees on industry. Environmentalists say the proposition will make it more difficult to implement key environmental rules, including parts of the state’s climate law. In the last days of midterm election campaigning, as it became clear that Prop 23 would fail, activists’ attention shifted to Prop 26. But it was apparently too late to make a significant difference at the polls.

Over in Minnesota, the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D) was defeated last night. Oberstar worked for years to reform pipeline safety and was in the process of developing new legislation to do so in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

In the very close Colorado Senate race between Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican Ken Buck, it appears that Bennet will garner just enough votes to win without a recount. As I noted yesterday in my midterm preview, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.”

Bennet does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

It may take some time to get the results of the Alaska Senate race between incumbent and write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), Tea Party favorite Joe Miller (R) and Democrat Scott McAdams. Murkowski appears to be winning, according to early results. Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Though she has opposed cap-and-trade bills in the past, she has a history of working closely with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the panel’s chairman, on key energy bills, including the comprehensive energy bill they passed in 2009.

It was mostly bad news for House Democrats who voted for the chamber’s cap-and-trade bill. The two most stinging defeats were Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who worked furiously behind the scenes to secure benefits for his coal-dependent state in the bill before finally giving his “yes” vote, and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who became somewhat of a celebrity on the left for standing by the more liberal wing of his party on a number of key votes, including cap-and-trade. Boucher, from Virginia’s 9th district, lost to his Republican opponent, Morgan Griffith, and Perriello, despite a big last-minute push by environmentalists and President Obama himself, lost to state Sen. Robert Hurt (R).

Politico ran the numbers this morning. At least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids, while at least seven (I noted Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) last night) won, with some races still too close to call. In total, Politico notes, more than 30 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill fell to their Republican opponents last night.

In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, managed to eke out a victory over Republican John Raese. While Democrats can technically put Manchin in their column, he campaigned against nearly every significant Obama administration policy, including cap-and-trade. In one now-infamous ad, he shot the House climate bill with a shotgun.

But there was some good news for environmentalists last night. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, won her reelection bid against Carly Fiorina. Boxer has always been a strong advocate for environmental protections, but her job is likely to get harder in the next Congress. She has already been accused of unwillingness to reach across the aisle, but with more Republicans in the Senate, she’ll have no choice if she wants to pass energy and climate bills.

At the same time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) survived a tough race against Tea Party darling Sharron Angle. The big question going forward now is what will Reid do on energy and climate legislation next Congress. By now, it’s common knowledge that it will be next to impossible to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next two years. So it seems Reid will focus on a series of low-hanging-fruit provisions that are popular on both sides of the aisle, including bills to incentivize electric vehicles, improve energy efficiency and weatherize homes.

The fate of two big-ticket items for environmentalists — a renewable energy standard and a much-delayed oil spill response bill — remains unclear. While there’s still time in the lame-duck session to try to pass both provisions, Republicans have more incentive to block the bills until next Congress, as they’ll have more sway later. There is Republican support for an RES, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, but GOP gains in the Senate could make it more likely that Republicans will push to add nuclear power and coal with carbon capture technology to the mix, a nightmare scenario for environmentalists.

It’s even less clear what will happen with the oil spill response bill. More than six months after the massive Gulf oil spill, Congress has yet to pass significant legislation to overhaul offshore drilling (on the regulatory side, the Interior Department has issued its own new drilling rules). A number of contentious issues, like how liable an oil company is for damages from a spill, are sure to take on new significance now that more Republicans are in the Senate.

In other key midterm results, Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative that would suspend the state’s landmark climate change law, failed. It’s a huge win for environmentalists, who funneled millions of dollars into the “No on Prop 23″ campaign, pitting themselves against two Texas oil refiners that campaigned heavily for passage of the initiative. California’s climate law is viewed by environmentalists as the gold standard. Passage of the ballot initiative would have been the icing on the cake of a disappointing year for climate activists.

At the same time, it looks like another California ballot initiative, Proposition 26, will pass. The measure would require a two-thirds majority vote in the state legislature and in local government bodies to impose new fees on industry. Environmentalists say the proposition will make it more difficult to implement key environmental rules, including parts of the state’s climate law. In the last days of midterm election campaigning, as it became clear that Prop 23 would fail, activists’ attention shifted to Prop 26. But it was apparently too late to make a significant difference at the polls.

It’s also worth noting that the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) was defeated last night. Obsertar worked for years to reform pipeline safety and was in the process of developing new legislation to do so in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

Two other key Senate races remain too close to call this morning. In the Colorado Senate race, Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican Ken Buck are still neck and neck. As I noted yesterday in my midterm preview, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.”

Bennet does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

Don’t hold your breath for results of the Alaska Senate race between incumbent and write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), Tea Party favorite Joe Miller (R) and Democrat Scott McAdams. Murkowski appears to be winning, according to early results. Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Though she has opposed cap-and-trade bills in the past, she has a history of working closely with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the panel’s chairman, on key energy bills, including the comprehensive energy bill they passed in 2009.

Boucher may very well be one of the first Democrats to lose a seat, in part, because of his vote for cap-and-trade. Virginia’s 9th district is quite conservative and Boucher’s vote for the bill was an unpopular one.