August 21-22, 2008
Aug 21 01:38 Leader Boehner Speaks Out On the AEA Aug 21 07:42 Susan Rice: Rove's 'Gift' to Obama? Aug 21 09:07 Sierra Club Praises Pelosi's Plan Aug 21 22:07 Obama's Housing Problem Aug 22 03:30 Obama's Troubles Just Starting Aug 22 10:15 Utter Fantasy Aug 22 23:22 Haws A Moderate? That Isn't What the Votes Say
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Leader Boehner Speaks Out On the AEA
According to this post on Leader Boehner's blog , John Boehner is speaking out in favor of the American Energy Act:
First I want to tell you why we're here. Republican members have a plan to help bring down high gas prices. Unfortunately, the Speaker has refused to allow a vote on our comprehensive 'all of the above' plan. We're not asking her to pass it, just let us have a vote.
70% of our oil comes from other countries because Democrats in Congress have walled-off drilling for oil in the outer-continental-shelf and oil shale in the inner-mountain West. Our plan is simple: 'all of the above'. That means more conservation, biofuels, renewables like wind and solar, as well as increasing American energy production.
Talk to your member of Congress to find out where they stand on 'all of the above' and the American Energy Act.
Thad McCotter also weighed in on Ms. Pelosi's obstinance:
Demand Maximum American Energy Now!
Leaving by example, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi jetted off on her summer vacation under the assumption energy squeezed Americans would throng to buy her book, Know Your Power.
But Americans weren't buying it literally.
Economically maimed by the pain at the pump, citizens demanded vacationing Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats' 'Don't Care' Congress get back to work and pass an 'all of the above' energy bill to lower gas prices.
Unmoved by these working families' sufferings, Speaker Pelosi conjured up another so-called 'energy proposal', one that is already acclaimed by none other than the anti-energy zealots at the Sierra Club. Yes, this is the same Sierra Club that pronounced: "We're better off without cheap gas."
Unfortunately, the Sierra Club's collective "we" included us.
Not surprisingly, then, the Speaker's latest lethargy proposal apes other energy schemes she's brought to the House floor without amendment and under a super-majority vote requirement. Desperate to guarantee these bills' defeats and blame Republicans, the Speaker orchestrated the nauseating spectacle of "Don't Care" Democrats, who a few months ago wouldn't vote to drill a tooth, now hugging derricks instead of trees.
This time, though, with a month of vacation under her Beltway, Pelosi's ploy has a new wrinkle. In the media she is floating specious reasons why Republicans will vote against her radical cornucopia of energy insecurity.
What she still fails to grasp, as with all her energy scams, is that the public will not be misled.
Americans understand House Republicans' bi-partisan 'all of the above' energy plan provides maximum American energy and, so doing, ensures lower gas prices and energy security.
So let us save the Speaker's breath, which she can use to inflate Senator Obama's tires. House Republicans will vote to stop Pelosi's ploy, because her latest anti-energy proposal will not include 'all of the above':
- Maximum American energy production;
- Common sense conservation;
- Free market alternative energy innovations; and, thus,
- A responsible transition to American energy security and independence.
The only real question about the "Don't Care" Democrat Congress's proposal is this:
When Pelosi's ploy thumps into the dust bin of hypocrisy, will she and her Democrat majority's 'Most Hated Congress in History' finally stop saving the planet and start sparing working families' wallets?
Or will the "Don't Care" Democrats' author (nee Speaker) start inking her book's sequel Know Your Abuse of Power?
Regardless, there is one thing you can count on. Working families and House Republicans will continue to demand maximum American energy!
The bottom line is that Pelosi and majority Democrats are in panic mode. They're on the wrong side of the most important issue of this campaign.
Deocrats are now attempting to spin this by telling people that drilling isn't really problematic, that prices won't really drop. The American people have made up their minds. They've heard about supply and demand. Democrats can spin if they wish.
The American people demand a solution. Democrats don't have a solution. It's only a matter of time before this starts showing up in the polls.
Originally posted Thursday, August 21, 2008, revised 08-Mar 9:13 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 21-Aug-08 07:20 AM
Hey Garry are you aware of the interesting solution Parnell has proposed for drilling for oil in ANWR. He has proposed (and apparently he has the support of the governor on this) that Alaska take the 2000 acres where oil companies want to drill and swap 2000 acres of land that Alaska owns. That way it's Alaska's land being drilled.
Sounds like a very fair solution to the crisis which I doubt that the Democrats will give any considersation to.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Chuck at 21-Aug-08 07:29 AM
I think the Dims have painted themselves in a corner on this one. They know that they're on the wrong side but any movement back to the center and rationale thought is met by howls from the far left loony bin so they're pretty much stuck.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Aug-08 07:45 AM
Walter, I hadn't heard of that but I like it. IMHO, there's no way that Speaker Pelosi will agree to that.
Chuck, I said 2 months ago that Democrats were painting themselves into a corner & that it was "our job to keep handing them paintbrushes & lots of new paint."
Comment 4 by Walter Hanson at 21-Aug-08 05:07 PM
Garry it was in an email update by the Parrnell campaign I got last night.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Susan Rice: Rove's 'Gift' to Obama?
Susan Rice is one of Barack Obama's top national security advisers. She might also be Karl Rove's implant in the Obama campaign. Every time she 'defends' Sen. Obama's foreign policy record, she causes more harm than good. Every time she critiques Sen. McCain's foreign policy acumen, she highlights McCain's expertise. Such is the case here :
Coinciding with a new poll suggesting McCain has overhauled Obama among voters nationally, Obama's senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice portrayed the Republican as a hot-head who could not be trusted to stay cool under fire.Ms. Rice obviously wants us to ignore that Sen. McCain was right in his first statement about Putin's invasion of Georgia. Ms. Rice also wants us to ignore Sen. McCain's being right about the surge.
McCain's "tendency is to shoot first and to ask questions later," she said on a conference call alongside former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who called the Republican "trigger-happy" and "reckless."
McCain, according to Rice, "cheer-led (President George W.) Bush's decision to take our eye off the ball and start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11."
"This is a record that belies anything approaching sound judgment," she said.
As for the "shoot first and to ask questions later" part, Sen. McCain called Georgian President Saakashvili hours after the initial invasion to get the scoop on what was happening in Georgia. Meanwhile, Sen. Obama issued a statement calling for restraint from both sides after Russia invaded. Then he left for a week of frolicking on the Hawaiian beaches. It wasn't until late the next day that Sen. Obama's advisers, presumably Dr. Rice among them, that told him that his position was politically untenable .
Based on Dr. Rice's statements, statements about foreign policy crises are only measured by whether it puts the candidate in a politically untenable position, not whether it's actually right. That sounds eerily similar to President Clinton's foreign policy.
That type of thinking doesn't put Sen. Obama in a flattering light. It makes him look untested.
That's why I'm wondering if Dr. Rice isn't Mr. Rove's gift to Sen. Obama.
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:42 AM
No comments.
Sierra Club Praises Pelosi's Plan
This is the Sierra Club's official statement praising Ms. Pelosi's latest non-energy energy plan. This statement leaves no doubt what Ms. Pelosi's goal is in offering another version of the DRILL Act.
Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive DirectorMr. Pope's language is clear: he thinks that drilling is bad for the environment and that it won't help "hardworking Americans." Mr. Pope, along with the Sierra Club, is certain that drilling won't lower prices at the pump.
"No one is more committed to clean energy solutions than Nancy Pelosi.
"The upcoming debate in Congress will allow the truth to come out, that offshore drilling won't lower gas prices today, tomorrow, or a even a decade from now and will simply benefit Big Oil's bottom line instead of helping hardworking Americans.
"The new legislation that Speaker Pelosi has outlined includes crucial clean energy solutions and other important measures that will make America more energy independent, offer consumers relief at the pump, and will force drilling supporters to admit whether they really want to move America forward or simply want to continue helping the oil companies."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Gary Pecquet and Morris Coats know better . So does the Energy Journal. So does the average American consumer.
Mr. Pope has since issued another statement condemning House Republican Leader John Boehner's Washington Times op-ed:
"Over the weekend Sierra Club stated that Speaker Pelosi's new compromise energy legislation 'will force drilling supporters to admit whether they really want to move America forward or simply want to continue helping the oil companies.' Boehner's hysterical response to Pelosi's plan tells us exactly where he stands before any votes have even been cast. We now have proof positive that Boehner has chosen Big Oil over hard working Americans.Mr. Pope's statement is riddled with inacuracies. Here's the most blatant inaccuracy:
"Despite months of complaining and political stunts, Boehner and his allies are now refusing to fast-track comprehensive energy legislation. Taking a cue from arch-conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, they oppose a compromise plan that will support renewable energy, give consumers real relief at the pump, put America on the true path to energy independence, and take back billions in government giveaways to Big Oil. So much for 'all of the above.'
"They held the Congress hostage and blocked measure after measure while gas prices soared. Now they want to stop yet another comprehensive energy bill that would deal with our energy crisis because they think it will help them win an election. Their bluff has been called and now all they have to rely is overheated and inaccurate rhetoric to defend their indefensible blockade against real energy solutions. They'll do-or say-anything to protect Big Oil and the billions in government giveaways it continues to receive while we pay record prices at the pump.
"Boehner is complaining that renewable energy, common sense policies that will bring immediate relief at the pump, and taking away billions in government giveaways from Big Oil are 'poison pills.' Boehner and other 'none of the above' supporters will find out soon enough that opposing clean energy and being in the pocket of Big Oil is what's really poisonous."
"They held the Congress hostage and blocked measure after measure while gas prices soared."
FACT: Congress did nothing while gas prices soared. When gas was $2.22 a gallon, the House voted to congratulate the UC-Santa Barbara Soccer Team. When gas hit $3.03 a gallon, Pelosi's House voted to congratulate the Houston Dynamo soccer team . When gas hit $3.77 a gallon, they voted for National Train Day. When gas hit $4.09 a gallon, they voted to commemorate the International Year of Sanitation .
Mr. Pope also asserts that "Boehner has chosen Big Oil over hard working Americans." That's a pile of BS. He's realized that hard working Americans won't get a break at the pump if 'Big Oil' doesn't increase output.
Here's another inaccuracy:
"Despite months of complaining and political stunts, Boehner and his allies are now refusing to fast-track comprehensive energy legislation."I'd love to hear Mr. Pope explain which efficiency and conservation provisions in the AEA he opposes.
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:Would Mr. Pope oppose any of these provisions?
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:Perhaps Mr. Pope opposes these measures? Finally, there's this BS:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
"Boehner is complaining that renewable energy, common sense policies that will bring immediate relief at the pump, and taking away billions in government giveaways from Big Oil are 'poison pills.'"He's doing nothing of the sort. Leader Boehner is advocating the AEA, which is everything that the environutters want in terms of efficiency and alternatives plus drilling.
It's time that America saw that the Sierra Club, not Big Oil, is the cause of high gas prices. It's also time that they saw that Democrats don't dare argue with these environutters.
Most importantly, it's time to take action to bring gas prices down so families aren't hurt more than they already are.
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:08 AM
No comments.
Obama's Housing Problem
Following Barack Obama's complaint about Sen. McCain not knowing how many homes Sen. McCain owned, the RNC has put together a fact sheet titled "OBAMA'S HOUSING PROBLEM" with this subtitle: "Brought To You By Convicted Felon Tony Rezko". This was utterly predictable. It's also refreshing to see the RNC react this quickly.
NOTE: The 3 Story House Has Four Fireplaces And A Wine Cellar. "When Obama and his wife, Michelle, a hospital executive, decided to move with their two young girls from their Hyde Park condominium, they chose a spacious three-story Georgian revival home on a tree-lined street in the Kenwood neighborhood, not far from the University of Chicago. The owner had listed the house, nearly 100 years old, with four fireplaces and a wine cellar, and an adjacent lot as separate parcels." (Peter Slevin, "Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser," The Washington Post, 12/17/06)I don't have a problem with the Obamas living in a nice home. This is what I've got a problem with:
Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. "Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife." (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)It's only fair that Sen. Obama get a deal considering this:
"As A State Senator, Barack Obama Wrote Letters To City And State Officials Supporting His Political Patron Tony Rezko's Successful Bid To Get More Than $14 Million From Taxpayers To Build Apartments For Senior Citizens." (TimThat won't sit well considering this:
Novak, "Obama's Letters For Rezko," Chicago Sun-Times, 6/13/07)
The Letters Show That Obama Did Do A Political Favor For Rezko. "Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko, a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and
client of the law firm where Obama worked, who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich." (Tim Novak, "Obama's Letters For Rezko," Chicago Sun-Times, 6/13/07)
FLASHBACK: In December Of 2006, Obama Said He Had "Never Done Any Favors For Him." "The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, 'I've never done any favors for him.'" (Tim Novak, "Obama's Letters For Rezko," Chicago Sun-Times, 6/13/07)That isn't all:
Rezko Offered Obama A Job When He Was A Harvard Law Student And The Two Have Stayed In Touch Ever Since. "One of them was Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was offered a job by Rezko in the early 1990s while a top student at Harvard Law School. Obama did not take it, but over the years, the two men stayed in touch!" (Peter Slevin, "Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser," The Washington Post, 12/17/06)Frankly, it was stupid of Sen. Obama and Gov. Kaine to raise this issue. That's all the proof I need that these gentlemen aren't mental giants, to put it nicely. Sen. Obama has made a number of unforced errors recently. This is the biggest that I can think of, though.
UPDATE: This article by David Freddoso reminded me of something. Here's what triggered my question:
On June 15, 2005, Obama bought a gorgeous house in Hyde Park for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the list price.Why did the Obamas get such a deal, especially considering the fact that that was at the height of the housing bubble? It seems to me that they shouldn't have gotten a discount. They should've paid a bit more than market value at that point.
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 21-Aug-08 10:35 PM
Just keep spinning. Just Keep spinning. Spinning, spinning, spinning...
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_have_a_real_estate_problem.html
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 21-Aug-08 10:36 PM
diogenes - you make that statement ASSUMING that Senator McCain owns the houses. He does not! The properties in question are all owned by HIS WIFE. Thanks to a craftily written pre-nuptial agreement Mrs. McCain's money is hers as is anything she has purchased with it....INCLUDING THE 8 HOMES THAT SHE OWNS.
Now don't you feel silly ASSuming things....
LL
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Aug-08 10:52 PM
And the $14 million of state money that Obama directed towards Rezko isn't stinky?
And the fact that he bought the house for $300K less than market value means nothing?
I know that that's business as usual in Chicago but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't corrupt by midwest standards.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Aug-08 10:22 AM
Di, My question is simple: who cares? Will voters care more about who's best to serve as Commander-in-Chief or who can name how many homes they have? Will voters care more about who has a plan for lowering gas prices or who can name how many homes they own? Will people care more about whether Obama is an empty suit who reads his lines well but is clueless about geopolitical history or who can name how many homes they own?
Frankly, that's an easy set of questions to answer. I'm betting that even you can figure that out.
Comment 5 by Political Muse at 22-Aug-08 11:26 AM
Yeah,
Who cares if John McCain is an elitist so out of touch with mainstream America that he believes you aren't rich until you are making $5 million per year.
Who cares if he has so many houses and homes and condos and properties that he simply cannot keep them straight. What average American doesn't forget their many properties?
Who cares if he owns shoes that cost more than most people's ONE house.
Who cares if he thinks this economy is super awesome while regular Americans struggle to make our ONE house payment.
Remember, the elitism charge is ONLY valid when used against a Democratic politician who owns one home. Then, and only then will it and should it matter to the American voting public. When it is found out that a Republican politician is more wealthy and obviously more elitist, then the issue becomes wholly invalid and could not possibly matter to the voting public. These are the rules people...
Look, I can be sarcastic and provide loaded statements too! Hooray for knowing how many houses I own (ONE).
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 22-Aug-08 11:58 AM
Eric, Shame on you for such a shallow post.
How does a guy that spent 5.5 years getting tortured in the Hanoi Hilton become an elitist? That's a braindead argument.
How does a guy who's fought corruption IN BOTH PARTIES suddenly become an elitist? Good luck making that stick.
Furthermore, it wasn't John McCain that said that blue collar workers in Pennsylvania cling to religion & guns because of difficult financial conditions.
It wasn't John McCain that attended a church where the pastor spewed some of the most vile racist garbage in the world for 20 years.
It wasn't John McCain that associated with an unrepentant terrorist for years.
Comment 7 by Walter hanson at 22-Aug-08 07:35 PM
Diagones:
You made a lot of fun of John Mccain and his not knowing the houses that he owns (in part because his wife owns the houses)
So help me out:
What is the 51st state of the Union? The 52nd state of the union? The 53rd state of the union? The 54th state of the Union? The 55th state of the Union? The 56th state of the Union? And of course the 57th state of the Union? The reason why I'm asking is Obama who I assume you believe he knows what he is talking about said he had been in 57 states during this campaign! So what states did I miss during my education? What states doesn't my alamanac have?
Come on Diagonnes you made fun of Mccain for not having an instant answer so what's the instant answer except Obama was stupid not John Mccain!
Oh by the way did the Democrats in 2004 demand that John Kerry and his wife sell every house, but one since I believe they had at least five houses! What's the issue if Kerry can have multiple houses, but not Mccain? That's discrimination and I thought Democrats were against discrimination.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama's Troubles Just Starting
Contrary to E.J. Dionne's opinion , I don't think Sen. Obama's troubles die out when August expires. In fact, I expect them to continue.
Like baseball players, political people are superstitious. In the Democratic imagination, August is the month when Republican presidential candidates destroy their opponents with clever, underhanded attacks that meet with ineffectual responses. Democrats are now petrified that if John Kerry was Swift-boated in August 2004, Barack Obama was Paris-Hiltoned this summer, and there will be no coming back.First off, it isn't accurate to say that the Democrats' superstitions are based on a single instance. Father and Son bush both trailed their Masssachusetts liberal opponents by double digits going into August. I recall Bob Beckel appearing on Neil Cavuto in August, 2004. During his appearance, Beckel said that the race was Kerry's to lose. Thankfully, Sen. Kerry was more than up to that job.
Never mind that this analysis is based on the experience of exactly one election. Superstitions are not necessarily rational. This time, Democrats decided that as a political matter, they would end August early by holding their convention and unveiling a running mate during the month of the jinx.
There's no question that Sen. Obama's troubles multiplied this month. I'd argue, though, that his troubles are just beginnning. Obama's vote against the Illinois state version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act won't play well with devout Catholics in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Let's remember that Sen. Obama never connected with blue collar workers after his San Fransisco fundraising speech.
Sen. Obama's 'Citizen of the World Speech' in Berlin hasn't helped either, though it was touted mightily by liberals at the time.
That's before we start factoring in Sen. Obama's shifting his opinion 3 times in 4 days earlier this month with regards to drilling. That's before we start talking about his mishandling of Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Most importantly, that's before factoring Jeremiah Wright's book signing tour in October. It's worth noting that we haven't yet factored in Sen. Obama's associations with William Ayers and Tony Rezko. Don't bet that those relationships won't become a factor.
Finally, Barack Obama will have to polish his schtick between now and the debates. Rush announced Thursday that teleprompters are set up at Obama townhall meetings with bullet points on them. He won't have them to assist him in the debates. And we've all seen what a disaster he's been when speaking without his teleprompter.
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 3:30 AM
No comments.
Utter Fantasy
This morning, Kimberly Strassel's column is the most laughable. The topic of Ms. Strassel's column: Democrats dreaming of a 60-seat majority in the Senate. Serious people who've done their due diligence know that that isn't going to happen. At best, they'll wind up 3-5 seats short.
A quick recap of the numbers: Republicans must defend 23 seats, compared to 12 for the Democrats. Of those GOP slots, 10 are at potential risk: Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, Mississippi, Maine and North Carolina. The Democrats claim only one vulnerable senator this year, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu. Depending on how big a day the party has in November, it is at least conceivable Democrats could get the nine seats they need to hit the magic 60.Let's start by taking Minnesota's seat off the table. Al Franken could lose by 20 points this year because his party's rank-and-file find him detestable. Testimony of that came at a recent event here in St. Cloud. One person showed up for the event even though the event was properly publicized. Next, take North Carolina and Maine off the map. Sen. Dole and Sen. Collins will be re-elected.
People have almost written John Sununu off, which is a big mistake. He's a strong closer and the GOP's momentum, which the gas price crisis is fueling, make it very possible for him to overcome Jean Shaheen.
A month ago, people had written Bob Schaffer off, too. Then the gas price crisis issue gained momentum. We know it's gained momentum because suddenly Mark Udall is doing photo ops on oil rigs. I've mockingly nicknamed him Oil Rig Mark. I'd be surprised if this race isn't a photo finish. I wouldn't be surprised if Schaffer won.
Something strange is happening on the Left Coast. There's suddenly a pro-drilling majority in pro-environment California. How many Oregonians agree on that? I don't have the answer but wouldn't that change the dynamics of that race?
What's at work here is that the GOP's Beltway strategists have bought into the "it's a difficult environment for Republicans" meme. As with most things that are common knowledge within the Beltway, that meme is a pile of BS. Here in the heartland, the energy issue is playing a huge role in the elections.
It's time that the GOP knotheads living on the Beltway meme to get out into the heartland and find out what real people are thinking. They'd quickly find that the House's oil uprising is having a huge effect on all the races.
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 10:17 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 22-Aug-08 01:17 PM
You know I'm beginning to be reminded of the trouble Abraham Lincoln had during the Civil War. He was looking for one general who will take the fight to Lee and keep fighting. He finally found General Grant. One person who was outraged about General Grant had a chance to protest to Lincoln and Lincoln's response was "He fights!" Why can't we have those consultants?
Of course these consultants would've told Lincoln to make peace with the south and let the Union be divided for the sake of the party.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 22-Aug-08 07:28 PM
Diogenes:
The RCP average is just five points. That's within the margin of error. Not to mention Shaffer has been hitting Udal hard on it. The oil issue is going to cause a lot of Republican wins in what you folks were dreaming to be a large Democrat year.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Aug-08 08:30 PM
Di-Guy, Schaffer was tied with Udall just a week ago. With energy being the issue driving that campaign, Rep. Udall will have to fight for his political life to win.
Comment 4 by Chuck at 22-Aug-08 09:13 PM
Obama's falling fortunes have to be figured in here also. There is a lot of talk of some Dems staying home election day. They don't just vote for President, this would mean fewer votes for Congress, Governors, etc.
Comment 5 by Walter hanson at 22-Aug-08 11:20 PM
Di:
The city of Santa Barbara, California (a group that I assume loves the coast as much as Colorado loves their mountains) is voting to support oil drilling. One reason why they're doing it is because oil is showing up on the beach and on rocks. By drilling for oil they figure that oil will go away. You're reading it dead wrong. People are waking up to the economy matters before the environment.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Haws A Moderate? That Isn't What the Votes Say
Larry Haws loves portraying himself as a sensible moderate who works well across party lines. To be fair, he worked with Dan Severson to get a good veterans bill passed in 2007. After that, Haws' record is thin on centrism. This 2007 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce voting summary tells a much different story.
One of the things that the Minnesota Chamber rated as important was S.F. 2096, the Energy Omnibus Finance Bill. Joyce Peppin's amendment would've eliminated the statewide moratorium on building nuclear power plants. Rep. Haws voted against the amendment, meaning he voted against a form of energy that emits no greenhouse gases and that is a cheap form of elecity generation.
Rep. Haws voted for the mammoth tax increase known as the Transportation Bill. Here's what that bill included:
- 5 cent gas tax increase
- allowed for a 2.5 cent gas tax surcharge to finance the debt service of bonds
- a license tab fee increase
- authority to impose a one-half cent sales tax to be divided between roads and transit in the seven-county metro area
- authority for greater Minnesota counties to impose a half-cent sales tax
- authority for all counties to impose a $5 or $10 wheelage tax.
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."Rep. Haws, (Moderate-DFL), voted for the bill's final passage, then voted to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
We also know that Rep. Haws supported an inferior E-12 Education bill. The DFL bill that passed and got signed into law in 2007 increased education funding from $4,974 per student in 2007 to $5,074 in 2008 and to $5,124 in 2009. By contrast, HF2029 would've increased E-12 education funding from $4,974 per student in 2007 to $5,350 in 2008 to $5,580 in 2009.
Had HF2029 passed in 2007, alot of the school referenda wouldn't have been needed last November. That, in turn, would've saved alot of people alot of money in property taxes.
Almost a year ago, Rep. Haws participated in the League of Women's Voters Education Forum, which I posted about here . During part of the discussion, Rep. Steve Gottwalt said that schools had to do a better job setting priorities on what they spent their money on. Rep. Haws looked startled at first, then recovering to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize."
I'm betting that most people would be appalled to find out that their legislator admitted that he hadn't considered prioritizing spending an important part of his job. Thoughtful legislators think of government spending through the lens of what are the taxpayers getting for their investment and through the lens of what impact their decisions will have on their constituents' prosperity.
Apparently, that didn't enter Rep. Haws' thought process. I'll guarantee that setting sensible spending priorities would've been Josh Behling's priority.
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 11:23 PM
No comments.
