August 14-15, 2008
Aug 14 07:26 MN-6 is a Bellwether District? Aug 14 10:56 Democrats' Talking Points??? Aug 14 14:41 Better Late Than Never Aug 14 16:27 Sen. Coleman's Statement on Rep. Olson Aug 14 16:47 "That Pelosi Woman Is Nuts" Aug 15 00:09 Sean Parnell vs. Don Young Aug 15 04:09 The Shot Heard Round the World??? Aug 15 22:45 Back In the Saddle Again!!!
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
MN-6 is a Bellwether District?
The Tinklenberg blog links to Blois Olson's MinnPost article , which says that MN-6 is "a bellwether" district. More than anything else, this statement stood out at me:
Voters are sick of Rep. Bachmann's lack of representation, particularly in a time when so many are suffering from a weak economy, high unemployment rates, and sky-rocketing energy costs.Why would people be "sick of Rep. Bachmann's lack of representation"? Rep. Bachmann shares their values. She's pro-life, which the vast majority of people in MN-6 agree with. She believes in keeping taxes low, which I'm betting is especially appealing when people's paychecks are stretched by needlessly high gas prices and high property taxes. Rep. Bachmann has been a leader on the energy issue.
While Mr. Tinklenberg halfheartedly talks about drilling and talks about raising the federal gas tax, Rep. Bachmannhas been fighting the fight against Big Enviro, hoping to open up drilling in ANWR, on the OCS and in the Green River Formation shale deposits. There's nothing halfhearted about Rep. Bachmann's support for bringing long-overdue relief to Minnesota's drivers.
Here's another statement that I took note of:
Noting the economic factors of the 6th District, Olson shows how Bachmann's inaction and unyielding support of Bush's failed economic policies will hurt her electoral chances:It's true that the Republican percentages have dropped but that's explainable. While Mark Kennedy was a solid representative, he didn't pay as close of attention to the northern end of the district as he should have. By not doing the voter maintenance he should have, he didn't maximize his vote totals from this strong conservative portion of his district.
The percentage of Republican voters in congressional elections has steadily declined in the last three elections, from 57 percent in 2002, to 54 in 2004 and 50 in 2006.
In 2006, Michele defeated Patty Wetterling, a woman with nearly 100 percent name recognition, in a strong anti-Republican year. Running in that environment, she still won by 9 points.
Things have changed this cycle.
The anti-Republican sentiment isn't nearly as high as 2006, thanks in large part to Republicans' efforts to drill offshore and in ANWR. People appreciate the fact that Republicans, especially House Republicans, are putting forth great effort to make life more affordable.
Finally, there's this tidbit of analysis:
Bachman's proclamation that we could see $2-a-gallon gas if there's more domestic drilling is probably not believable to voters.It doesn't have to get down to $2/gallon. This isn't smart analysis. The fact that she's doing something substantive to bring prices down is what people are watching. Tinklenberg took his alternative energy toug of the Sixth District but has been, at best, tepid in supporting drilling on the OCS. That isn't where Sixth District voters are.
Here's Dictionary.com's definition of bellwether:
a person or thing that shows the existence or direction of a trendMr. Olson might still be right that the Sixth District is a bellwether district. I just don't see it being a trend the DFL will particularly like.
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:26 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 15-Aug-08 07:46 AM
Gary a point to be made about this in 2006 unlike 2004 and 2002 the district was flooded with millions of dollars to try to destroy Michelle Bachman and she still won and got 50% of the vote. What can they do differently now than they did in 2006? I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle not only wins, but her vote total goes up to 55% or greater.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Democrats' Talking Points???
Yesterday morning, Michele Bachmann debated New Jersey's Rep. Frank Pallone. I'm certain that one thing that Rep. Pallone said isn't in the Democrats' talking points. Here's the interview's transcript , conducted by CNN's Ali Velshi:
VELSHI: Well, drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore and more places in the United States, exploring renewable alternatives, finding more energy here at home is the focus of the energy bill that Congress has been working on. And we wanted to have a substantive discussion about this with two of the people whoa re involved in making decisions in Washington. So joining us now from Minnesota is Republican Congressman Michele Bachmann. And here in studio is Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone from New Jersey. Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being with us.I don't think that saying that "we have to get away from fossil fuels and dependence on oil and natural gas" is the message Democrats want getting out. I don't doubt that that's their belief. It's just that I think they're trying to downplay their environutter credentials until after this November's election. They don't want to be portrayed as the political party that wants to move away from oil and natural gas right now. Instead of hiding the Democrats' anti-drilling credentials, Rep. Pallone tells everyone that that's their agenda.
Congresswoman Bachmann, I want to talk to you first about this, because those pictures that we just showed we took from an airplane above ANWR, and you were with us on that airplane. You went up there to sort of get a sense for yourself about the impact of drilling in ANWR. What did you come away with? What's your feeling having been there?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Ali, I came away with the idea that this is the most perfect place on the planet to drill. It is just 70 miles east of the current energy lifeline that comes down through Alaska. It's permanently frozen in total darkness three months out of the year, under ice and snow nine months out of the year, and it's a concentrated area.
Also, it's important for your listeners to know that this area was specifically set aside by President Jimmy Carter for the purpose of drilling . It's the size of a postage stamp on a football field. So a very tiny area. And if there's anything that the North slope of Alaska has proved, it is a 31-year demonstration project of responsible drilling that can coexist very well, environmentally speaking, with habitat and with wildlife.
VELSHI: Representative Pallone, you know the position that Representative Bachmann has. What's your view on drilling in ANWR? It's going to give us some amount of oil, definitely, at a time when we seem to be short of oil. Do you think it's worth it?
REP. FRANK PALLONE (D), NEW JERSEY: It's not necessary. There's an area right next to it called the National Petroleum Reserve, which is much bigger, where drilling is allowed. Democrats posted a bill that would say that you could actually lease more area in the National Petroleum Reserve and build a pipeline from there to the continental United States. And the Republicans opposed that. So this is a false debate because, actually, we'd like to drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, and the Republicans essentially blocked the effort to do more there.
VELSHI: Now, Representative Bachmann, we also flew over the National Petroleum Reserve and were talking about that. We saw some oil facilities there. The bottom line is this, many of our views may or may not know, there's a great deal of drilling that goes on in Alaska. We were at the beginning, the head of the Alaska Pipeline. What do you think about that alternative, drilling in that area that is OK to drill in?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTA: Well, Ali, the choice isn't drilling one place or another. What we need to do is all of the above. We need to be drilling in ANWR because it's the most convenient, quickest place. It's also the smallest footprint. We could continue to drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, and I would favor that.
The fact is, we would have a larger environmental footprint if we would do that. Whereas we would have a smaller footprint if we would drill in the ANWR area. I believe we should drill in both, as well as offshore. As well as the 2 trillion barrels of oil that are available for oil shell in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, let alone the natural gas, let alone the coal, let alone solar, wind and also the new generation of car batteries.
VELSHI: Fortunately, we're talking about all of those things.
BACHMANN: We need to do it all, that's our position.
VELSHI: Oil shale, which is what the president has talked about, is some distance away because of the infrastructure that has to be put on to this. But offshore oil drilling, here's an interesting one because John McCain is definitely getting some traction on the idea of offshore drilling. We're seeing more and more people support the idea. And while Barack Obama has said that could be seven or 10 years, John McCain, I think, has shortened that to 10 to 12 months or something he says people tell him. What's the general opposition, representative, to drilling offshore?
PALLONE: Well, first of all, I should point out that last I heard John McCain was still opposed to drilling in ANWR.
VELSHI: Right. That is correct.
PALLONE: And that's the position he takes.
I think that what the real answer here is, we have to get away from fossil fuels and dependence on oil and natural gas . And we have to encourage renewables. And I would say that, you know, that should be the focus.
Democrats in Congress have put up bills that basically would say that 20 percent of our energy needs for utilities should be through renewables. We've been trying to take the money away, the subsidies away from the oil industry and give it to people, both, you know, homeowners and commercial establishments that would use it for solar power or wind power. We've tried to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Unfortunately, on all these other issues, which are much more comprehensive and with less independence on fossil fuel, in most cases President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have opposed us.
And that's the problem. The Republicans keep saying drill, drill, drill. That's not the answer. The answer is to get away from fossil fuel.
VELSHI: This is part of why we brought both of you on because I think you share views on where we need to get more fuel from and what else we need to do. But Representative Bachman and representative Pallone, I think the issue here is that, to the American public, the Democrats and the Republicans are just not coming together on this. And I don't know whether it's that none of you will change your positions or you won't look at it comprehensively.
Representative Bachmann, let me start with you. What is it going to actually take to get you all to come up with a solution? Because I don't think there's as much difference in space between you as we may be led to believe.
BACHMANN: I agree. I don't think there's a large space between us either. I think what would get us to come together would be to have the speaker of the House call all members of Congress back to Washington, D.C. I'm going back to Washington, D.C. this week to speak on the floor because I believe we should be in D.C. solving this problem rather than at home on vacation.
What we believe as Republicans in the House of Representatives is all of the above. We don't believe that as members of Congress we should decide which form of energy the American people should use. We think the American people can make that decision in the free marketplace. Let's just legalize energy production. We're the only country in the world that make it illegal to access our own energy.
VELSHI: Representative Pallone, what do you think of that suggestion?
PALLONE: Well, the fact of the matter is, that it hasn't happened. In other words, when we were in session in June and July, the speaker brought up all these bills, you know, to eliminate speculation in the market, to increase production in the National Petroleum Reserve, to take oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to increase renewables and take the subsidy away from the oil companies and give it to renewables. And every time, the Republicans oppose this legislation.
We want... Democrats want a comprehensive approach that also increases drilling, not in these environmentally sensitive areas , but the Republicans have blocked that. So I would hope that when we come back, that we can take this comprehensive approach. But the president has to give in on these other issues, as well. And that is to less reliance on fossil fuel.
VELSHI: Well, you both have a commitment to this. And I think it would be good to take that message back. That the outside observer sort of sees people who are determined to try and make some change here but it's not getting done. So we thank you both for coming and sharing your views with us. And again, I underscore, I don't think there's as much difference between them as we might think.
Representative Bachman, good to see you again. Thank you very much.
Representative Pallone, thank you for being with us.
PALLONE: Thank you.
BACHMANN: Ali, thank you.
Rep. Pallone also mentioned drilling in NPR-A. That's rather odd because the NPR-A is within a few miles of a beautiful mountain range. If anything fits the description of pristine wilderness, it's the NPR-A. ANWR's Coastal Plain doesn't fit that descriptio.
Here's something else that Rep. Pallone said that's worth examining:
Democrats in Congress have put up bills that basically would say that 20 percent of our energy needs for utilities should be through renewables.I can't argue with that. That's part of the problem. The Democrats' bills are half-steps. They aren't serious steps. The Democrats' bills also prohibited Republicans from offering any amendments. That isn't open debate. If Democrats thought that they had the superior plan, they'd welcome the GOP's amendments to show the contrast between the Democrats' plan and the GOP's plan.
Democrats didn't allow that to happen because they're certain that it'd provide an embarrassing defeat to Speaker Pelosi.
People are struggling to fill their tanks. They know that domestic drilling and increasing production is vital to reigning in inflation and making everything more affordable.
Eventually, we will transition. That day isn't now. People want to make that transition on their timetable, not because Democrats mandate it with legislation.
People would be wise to not pay attention to Democrats' claims that they're pro-drilling. After all, Democrat Pelosi told vulnerable Democratic incumbents to say whatever they needed to say to get re-elected . Rep. Pallone's statement just re-enforces that.
UPDATE: Here's the YouTube video of Michele Bachmann's debate with Frank Pallone on CNN:
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:07 PM
No comments.
Better Late Than Never
President Bush took some justified criticism for not laying down the law sooner with regards to Russia's invasion of Georgia. Yesterday, he upped the ante by announcing SecDef Gates' putting together humanitarian relief missions to Georgia. He also said that he was sending Condi Rice to Georgia after first stopping in France to meet with President Sarkozy. This morning, he recommitted the United States to the other countries bordering Russia and to the existing Georgian administration:
US President George W. Bush assured leaders of Ukraine and Lithuania on Thursday that he remains fully committed to "a sovereign, free Georgia and its territorial integrity," the White House said.This is a classic case of better late than never. This is a rarity; President Bush was very sure-footed almost from the get-go after the terrorist attacks. I was surprised that it took him this long to face down Putin's totalitarian ambitions and his brutal attack of a fledgling democracy. The President Bush of 2004 would've been critical of this almost instantly.
In his conversations with Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, Bush stressed US "solidarity" with Georgia in its conflict with Russia, according to spokeswoman Dana Perino.
"All the leaders stressed the importance of standing by a sovereign, free Georgia and its territorial integrity, and agreed on the need for Russia to stop the violence, abide by the ceasefire and withdraw its forces," she said.
With that said, President Bush's response, accomplanied by John McCain's stern initial warning, is having an effect on Russia's actions. It's also time to start pushing for Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and other countries facing similar problems with Russia for NATO membership. It's time Putin understood that we won't tolerate his actions.
More importantly, it's important that Georgia and other former Soviet satellites to know that we stand steadfast with them. This isn't a time for them to doubt our reliability. This is the time for things to be straightforward and steadfast.
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:43 PM
No comments.
Sen. Coleman's Statement on Rep. Olson
This afternoon, Sen. Norm Coleman issued a statement on the Senate Republican Caucus' decision not to support disgraced state Rep. Mark Olson:
"I stand firmly with the members of the Senate Republican Caucus who today announced that they will not support Mark Olson for the open Senate seat of Betsy Wergin. His endorsement by the party is a matter that is of great concern to me. In particular, given the circumstances behind Mr. Olson's decision to not seek re-election to the Minnesota House of Representatives, a decision that I believe was the right decision, I believe the fact that he is our party's endorsed candidate for Senate District 16 is simply unacceptable and unsupportable.I appreciate Sen. Coleman's statement. After what I wrote last week, I obviously and wholeheartedly concur with him.
"The Senate Republican Caucus has made the appropriate decision in rejecting the candidacy of Mark Olson. I understand there are other candidates who may remain eligible to run in the September Primary, and I would hope that they continue their efforts to become our party's standard bearer.
"In the unfortunate event that Mr. Olson succeeds in the September Primary, I would ask that our party refuse to offer any type of assistance to his campaign. While the loss of a State Senate seat is unfortunate, I join Senators Senjem, Fischbach, Gimse, Hann, Koch and Michel in the strong belief that we must maintain and uphold our beliefs that violence of any kind, whether it is in word or in deed, should not be rewarded with our party's support, or the support of voters in Senate District 16."
As I've written before, I've met Alison Krueger ans was impressed by her. Her energy, her steadfast belief in conservative principles and her intellectual heft more than qualify her to be an outstanding state senator. I will do everything possible to get Ms. Krueger elected. Similarly, I'd do everything in my power to get Mark Olson defeated. I'd prefer that that happen in the primary. If it doesn't happen there, then it'll have to be in the general election.
The Minnesota GOP must be a big tent party. That doesn't mean we let anybody in. That certainly doesn't mean we let physically abusive people be part of our party.
I applaud Sen. Coleman for this unprecedented response. It isn't the routine thing to do. It's just the right thing to do. Let's hope that Sen. Coleman finds time to campaign with Ms. Krueger. Let's hope the rank-and-file get this message.
Originally posted Thursday, August 14, 2008, revised 12-Nov 2:04 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 14-Aug-08 09:50 PM
"Let's hope that Sen. Coleman finds time to campaign with Ms. Krueger."
But doesn't that break her pledge not to actively campaign? Doesn't that make her a liar? Rock, meet hard place.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-08 11:35 PM
IMO, sometimes breaking a promise is justified.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 16-Aug-08 08:34 PM
This was a self inflicted would - if Tim Pawlenty hadn't appointed Betsy Wergin to the PUC, this wouldn't be an issue.
The reason Coleman is doing this, is because he is concerned about fallout to his own campaign (in the same way that Jon Grunseth scandal hurt Rudy Boswitz's reelection campaign). Norm Coleman is trying to exploit this situation to reach moderate women voters (hoping to avoid the issue of making abortion criminal - which Norm supports - and which alienates those suburban moderates).
Comment 4 by Eva Young at 16-Aug-08 08:35 PM
"As I've written before, I've met Alison Krueger ans was impressed by her. Her energy, her steadfast belief in conservative principles and her intellectual heft more than qualify her to be an outstanding state senator. I will do everything possible to get Ms. Krueger elected. Similarly, I'd do everything in my power to get Mark Olson defeated. I'd prefer that that happen in the primary. If it doesn't happen there, then it'll have to be in the general election."
EY: If this is true, how come she did so horribly at the convention?
"That Pelosi Woman Is Nuts"
God bless working class Americans. Thanks to this video of Jeb Hensarling collecting signatures in Texas, I now know that I'm not the only person thinks that Speaker Pelosi isn't the brightest bulb in the Democrats' chandelier:
Check out the gentleman who strikes up a conversation with Rep. Hensarling at the 1:25 mark.
Since the people in the video are so articulate, I'll let it speak for itself.
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:48 PM
No comments.
Sean Parnell vs. Don Young
When Sean Parnell first announced that he was challenging Don "Bridge to Nowhere" Young in Alaska's GOP primary, few people in the 'Lower 48' knew much about. I suspect that most, like me, didn't give him much of a chance. It now appears that Don Young is headed for an involuntary retirement. Check out this endorsement video from Sarah Palin:
Next check out this advertisement put together by the Club For Growth:
A new generation of politicians are climbing the ladder. Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell are prominent members of that new generation. Other members of this generation's new leaders include Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann in the House, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and John Thune in the Senate, Gov. Palin in Alaska, Gov. Jindal in Louisiana and Gov. Pawlenty here in Minnesota.
It's time for the GOP to start cleaning out the deadwood that's accumulated in Washington, especially in the House. It's time we started re-establishing the GOP brand. It's long past time to start giving people reasons to trust us again.
Click this link to contribute to Sean Parnell's campaign is a great way to start that transition. The best part is that we'd get rid of a parasite like Rep. Young and replace him with an idealistic, energetic conservative Sean Parnell.
Earlier tonight, I got an email from Pat Toomey of the Club For Growth talking about the Parnell-Young race. Here's the content of that email:
A new poll done for Sean Parnell in his Alaska Republican primary race against the "Bridge to Nowhere" congressman, Don Young, shows Parnell with a four point lead, but the race is within the margin of error of the poll , so we must leave nothing to chance.Any Republican that (a) supports card check legislation and (b) requests earmarks at a rate that's competitive with John Murtha must go. I'd call Don Young a RINO but that'd give RINOs a bad reputation. Don Young is simply a corrupt politician who has to go.
The election is now just 12 days away. Now is the last chance for you to have an impact.
Now is the last chance to get rid of Young, who recently voted with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to raise income taxes.
Now is the last chance to defeat Young, a three-time winner of Citizens Against Government Waste's "Porker of the Month" award.
Now is the last chance to replace Young, who sided with the Democrats to override all three of President Bush's vetoes of budget-busting bills last year.
Click here to donate now to Sean Parnell's campaign.
Read what Don Young said to Republican budget cutters on the House floor last year: "This constant harping on this floor about cutting monies from other areas under the guise of balancing the budget, I say shame on you, too. I say shame on you because we are not doing the legislative process any good...And like I say, those that bite me will be bitten back."
Don Young embodies what's wrong with too many Republicans today. Fortunately, we have an excellent chance to replace him with economic conservative Sean Parnell.
If you usually only donate to help win elections in November, consider this. Every public poll done in the last two months shows Young loses in November if he is the Republican nominee. Parnell is the best candidate on economic issues and the best candidate for winning in November.
The most recent campaign reports show that Young's #1 source of campaign funds comes from unions who love Don Young's vote for the "card check" bill that would banish secret ballot elections to organize a union.
Click here to donate now to Sean Parnell's campaign.
Sean Parnell is a different kind of politician. He is the polar opposite of Don Young in both philosophy and temperament.
Before Sean Parnell became lieutenant governor in 2006, he served two terms in the state House (1993-1996) and two terms in the state Senate (1997-2000), compiling a solid record as a fiscal conservative. During that time, he fought against several attempts to raise taxes and increase spending. Sean supports permanent repeal of the Death Tax, making the tax cuts permanent, curbing government spending and drilling for more oil and gas. Sean has also taken a pledge to oppose tax increases.
Along with Alaska's extremely popular governor, Sarah Palin, Parnell is viewed as a reformer who wants to clean up Alaska's image, making it free of corruption and pork-barrel abuses. When was the last time you heard someone call Don Young a reformer? Never. Please help Sean Parnell defeat Congressman Don Young in the August 26 Republican primary by making a donation to Sean's campaign today.
Click here to donate now to Sean Parnell's campaign.
If you prefer not to donate online, you can call us with your credit card ready at (800) 784-2741. Or you can donate to Sean Parnell's campaign by check. Please make your checks payable to Parnell for Congress. Contributions are limited to $2,300 per person. Then mail your check to Club for Growth PAC, 2001 L St NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20036.
Best Regards,
Pat
Posted Friday, August 15, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 15-Aug-08 07:42 AM
Folks keep in mind if you want restrained Washington spending will Don Young give it to you? No. Will the Democrat who wins give it to you? No. Parnell is the candidate.
And keep in mind every seat that Nancy gets is a seat she can play games with. With the house at 239-199 she can afford to lose 21
votes and win every vote. At 240-198 she gets 22. One vote might not sound like much to you, but that was the recess vote.
A key thing that Nancy is counting on gaining lots of seats so come 2009 she can put votes on the floor like the Democrat version of energy with no fear of amendement votes (right now she fears she will lose) and having a President Obama to sign them. Parnell helps throw a monkey wrench into that plan.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Margaret at 15-Aug-08 08:00 AM
I wouldn't put John Thune in the same category as this group. I can't think of a bigger disappointment than Thune who championed the boondoggle DM&E rail and is now in the gang of 10 pushing their pork laden "bipartisan energy bill." A lot of us in Minnesota were excited when he was able to take out Daschle but his quick transformation into the Republican Daschle is a cautionary tale for fiscal conservatives.
The Shot Heard Round the World???
In December 6, 2007, Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor to talk about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Here's that video:
This is an early part of the transcript:
If Bobby Thompson could reference the shot heard round the world, we should indeed be able to do it today. This vote, on this legislation, will be a shot heard round the world for energy independence for America.After President Bush signed the bill, Speaker Pelosi put in her two cents worth. Here's what the NY Times reported :
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, described the bill as groundbreaking because it would reduce oil imports, cut production of the gases that scientists blame for global warming and significantly increase the efficiency of the nation's auto fleet.How is it that a little over six months after this bill was signed, gas prices skyrocketed to a national average over $4/gallon? How is it that this bill didn't fulfill its promise? According to this website , the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $2.23 on 11/13/2006. It was $2.30 per gallon on 2/19/2007.
"You are present at a moment of change, of real change," she told her House colleagues before the vote was taken.
Ms. Pelosi and other supporters of the bill expressed disappointment that it did not include a requirement that utilities produce a growing share of electric power from renewable sources and was stripped of a package of subsidies for wind, solar, geothermal and other alternative energy sources that would have been paid for by higher taxes on oil companies.
According to this website , here are the stated goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:
"To move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes."This is the Democrats' bill. According to Govtrack , Nick Rahall, (D-WVA) was the bill's sponsor in the House. There were 200 co-sponsors of the legislation; Chris Shays and Wayne Gilchrest were the only Republicans listed as co-sponsors.
You'll notice that there isn't a single provision in the bill that increased traditional energy supplies. It's all about renewables, conservation and various other meaningless provisions.
The Democrats' Failure
Since the time of this bill's signing, oil prices have spiked.
Now Democrats are asking us to trust them again to fix America's gas crisis? I think not. Let's remember that Democrats intended this legislation to be one of their signature achievements. It's failed miserably.
I can't help but think that the markets looked at this bill and recoiled, knowing that this bill wouldn't fix anything.
The Republicans' Plan
The House Republicans' plan is the American Energy Act. Here are the bill's provisions :
To increase the supply of American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the American Energy Act will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which could provide an additional 3
million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas;- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which could provide an additional 1 million
barrels of oil per day;- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide
an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day; and- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that
hinders the construction of new refineries.
To improve energy conservation and efficiency, the American Energy Act will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles;
- Provide a monetary prize for being the first to develop an economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle (reaching 100 miles-per-gallon); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency.
To promote alternative and renewable energy technologies, the American Energy Act will:Since this bill was introduced, gas prices have dropped, though the strengthening of the dollar has played a significant part. Still, it's worth noting what the Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson said :
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting, the repeal of the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promotion of coal-to-liquids technology;
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain;
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen; and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production.
McCain and most Republicans support more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas; most Democrats don't (Obama has said he might consider more offshore drilling). The Democrats are deservedly getting pounded on this. Of course, "we can't drill our way out of this problem." But if we don't increase drilling, import dependence will worsen as production from mature fields ebbs. Since 1990, U.S. oil production has dropped 23 percent, while imports have gone from 42 percent to 58 percent of consumption. Greater exploration is common sense, as more Americans recognize (Democrats' candor grade: F).The point I'm making is obvious: Democrats shouldn't be trusted on this issue. They've sought to cure this gas crisis by putting a low priority on drilling. In fact, there's ample proof that Democrats didn't think of oil as a solution until the American people turned against them in poll after poll. Here's what Elwyn Tinklenberg's energy website says :
America must reduce its dependence on the coal and petroleum products that contribute to global warming, and energy alternatives are becoming widely available in bio-derived, nuclear, solar, and wind energy.Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even consider expanding drilling. Considering these statements, it's insulting that Democrats, from Sen. Obama to Speaker Pelosi to Rep. Pallone or Mr. Tinklenberg, want the American people to trust them to solve a crisis that they created, then refused to fix.
It's time to turn the keys over to the House Republicans. Yes, that means ignoring the Gang of Ten disaster. It's time to get behind the American Energy Act. Examine the provisions, then tell me that the House Republicans' plan doesn't make total sense. Good luck trying to argue against it.
At best, you might slightly modify a provision or two.
The question the American people have to answer is whether they want (a) ever-escalating gas prices with a possible semi-solution waiting 10-15 years down the road or (b) a solid fix that's available within the next five years.
It seems to me that that's a pretty easy choice once you ignore Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric.
Posted Friday, August 15, 2008 4:12 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 15-Aug-08 07:32 AM
You know Gary if this was a shot heard around the world I was a little deaf and haven't heard it.
But this is a great example of media bias.
How many reporters except maybe Tim Russert would show part of this clip and ask Nancy about it. Oh well since this is a conservative blog the main stream media won't talk about it.
Where's my savings? You wouldn't happen to know what the price of gasoline was on the day this bill passed. For those people who say the Democrats need to be trusted this is a clear case of their policies not working.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-08 09:33 AM
It isn't a case of media bias, Walter. It's a case of a much-too-over-inflated ego.
Back In the Saddle Again!!!
I've had a mildly frustrating day today. I could access LFR. I just couldn't access my WP dashboard. (I kept getting 404 could not find errors.) After trying every trick in the book, & a few that weren't, I decided "Screw this, download Firefox', which I did. I got Firefox all setup the way I like it about a half hour ago. Or so I thought. I couldn't access my TrueNorth dashboard with Firefox. MAJOR GRRRRR!!!
The next logical thing to do was to use Internet Explorer for TrueNorth & Firefox for everything else.
That's when I noticed something unexpected and totally appreciated. When I started IE7, everything came up just like it's supposed to, including my preset tabs.
HOORAY!!!
Now I'm back in business. It's time to make up for lost time. It's been an entire morning and afternoon since I've harrassed high profile liberals. With all this frustration, it won't take me more than an hour for me to crank out at least 3-4 posts harassing liberals.
Posted Friday, August 15, 2008 10:47 PM
No comments.
