August 5-6, 2008
Aug 05 02:54 Last Gasp of a Desperate Party? Aug 05 09:57 Grunwald: Obama Right On Tire Pressure Savings Aug 05 11:17 We Demand Actions, Not Words Aug 05 18:44 Talk is Cheap Aug 05 22:46 Will Udall's Flip-Flop Cost Him This November? Aug 05 23:30 Paris Hilton: I'm Ready to Lead Aug 06 05:03 Day 4: Bringing In the Big Guns Aug 06 05:49 When CW Is Wrong Aug 06 11:27 This Will Ruin Mark Udall's Day...
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Last Gasp of a Desperate Party?
According to this Washington Times article , Jim Manley characterized Republicans' threat to shut the government down so that the drilling ban expires as a "last gasp of a party without ideas, hamstrung by a politically weakened president and fully understanding that they are going to lose a significant number of seats in November."
I've never thought that it was particularly smart to shut the government down on because I think that's giving the Democrats a distracting issue. It's better to fight this fight another day. That said, I think that Jim Manley's characterization is absurd. Manley's mischaracterization is understandable when it's taken in the context that he's Harry Reid's spokesman. Mr. Manley wants to create the illusion that Democrats are winning the gas crisis issue. The truth is that a supermajority of Americans agree with the Republicans' policies.
I think that Democrats will gain seats in the Senate. I strongly disagree that they'll win seats in the House, though. Speaker Pelosi is getting criticized from the left and the right. Here's the transcript from her appearance on This Week With George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: , You've been getting a lot of heat on...for not allowing a vote, a straight up-or-down vote on expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up- or-down vote?Putting it mildly, Stephanopoulos isn't unsympathetic to liberal ideology. I watched the video of her trying to defend herself. It was painful watching. Ms. Pelosi was clearly agitated, perhaps even flabbergasted. Think the oppositve of poised.
PELOSI: What these...what our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for 10 years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something as part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a party of it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Except that it's not just Republicans calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, is saying there's going to be a vote. Here he says exactly, there's going to be a vote. September 30th will not come and go without a vote on opening the outer continental shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer. He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership, and a vote must happen.
PELOSI: Well, maybe it will, as it's part of a larger energy package.
Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 10 or 20 million more acres in Alaska, where they're permitted, where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from a failed energy policy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?
PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation has been made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is, again, a decoy, it's not a solution.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you're right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?
PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle.
Democrats and Republicans are not right down party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them.
But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices. ,
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker, you promised in your commitment book, A New Direction for America, let me show our viewers, you said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.
If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?
PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote, and they may get a vote. But I have tried, you know, we have serious policy issues in our country. The president of the United States has presented this but for this, our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump.
It's simply not true. And even the president himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said there is no quick fix for this by drilling.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you will not permit a vote. You may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?
PELOSI: Well, again, we take this one step at a time. But why we're spending all this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe? We have...
The reason that's important is because it's an indication that Pelosi's Democrats are feeling the heat from their constituents. Indications were that House Democrats thought this issue was playing right into their hands. I'm betting that they're feeling the heat now that they're actually having to face constituents frustrated by high gas prices. These constituents now see the tyrant side of Ms. Pelosi. They see her obstructionism.
The American people are attracted to the Republicans' optimistic, positive agenda. They're convinced that we can drill and lower prices. The longer Ms. Pelosi remains obstinent, the more Republicans benefit.
If Ms. Pelosi turns in more performances like last Sunday's, Democrats will push her off center stage.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:55 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 05-Aug-08 08:17 AM
Two points on this:
One, George could have easily been more agressive. He could've just as easily said you are the Speaker of The House which means you can order a vote. You have no right to blame the President for your decision not to call for a vote which in theory you should win so why not allow the Republicans their lost vote so you can present your alternatives with no restrictions?
Two yes the Democrats are going to win seats in the senate unfortunately, but the oil drilling issue is having an impact there. Two races which I resigned as being lost John S. of New Hampshire and Shaffer in Colorado especially because of how Nancy arm twisted winning the one vote recess might win their races now. Two less Democrats are important.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Grunwald: Obama Right On Tire Pressure Savings
According to this Time Magazine article by Michael Grunwald, Barack Obama is right in saying that keeping our tires properly inflated will save as much gas as we'd produce in offshore drilling. Sadly, Mr. Grunwald's statistics don't add up:
How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.What blithering idiot thinks that we'd only get 200K bbl/day from the OCS? Multiply that figure by 10 and you're closer to reality. There's no way we don't get a minimum of 1,000,000 bbls/day from the OCS.
But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
One wonders where Mr. Grunwald got his information from. (Don't be surprised if it's from the EIA.)
It's estimated that there's almost 90 billion bbls hidden on the OCS. Here's what the U.S. Minerals Management Service is forecasting:
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) oil production is forecasted to increase over the next ten years to a possible high of 2.1 million barrels of oil per day. The Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) released today its Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production Forecast: 2007-2016, at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas. In the report, GOM gas production is forecasted to recover from recent declines over the next three years to a possible high of 8.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day.Either Mr. Grunwald is a Democratic shill or he's a sloppy researcher or both. One thing he isn't is accurate. Mathematically speaking, that peak would be approximately 10 percent of the United State's daily consumption in 2008. That's also assuming that our consumption won't drop as a result of better fuel efficiency.
Then let's figure out how much gas we'd actually save by keeping tires properly inflated. I'll readily stipulate that it does save gas. Mr. Grunwald's estimation appears to assume that nobody currently keeps their tires properly inflated. If that's the assumption that he's making, then he'll be wrong. Let's assume that half of the vehicles have properly inflated tires. That means a savings of only 1.5% over what we're currently using. 1.5% of 20 million bbls. is approximately 300,000 bbls. saved.
That 300,000 bbl. figure represents one seventh of the projected daily production from the OCS. That's before we start talking about shale oil. That's before factoring in ANWR production.
FYI- Let's consider this report's data :
The MMS estimates that the quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.These estimates are usually conservative. Even so, 115.3 billion bbl. would supply all of our oil needs for 16.2 years. That's if we didn't have other wells going at the same time. That's assuming that we didn't import oil from Canada and Mexico.
CONCLUSION: Sen. Obama doesn't have his facts straight. Neither does Mr. Grunwald. They're peddling nonsense and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment 1 by Tara at 05-Aug-08 04:45 PM
We just posted audio from McCain's rebuttal over on Entertonement.
We Demand Actions, Not Words
This article says that Speaker Pelosi doesn't have a problem with Democrats opposing her on drilling...to a point. Here's what's actually happening:
California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet - but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.I'm not surprised that this is Pelosi's strategy. There's just one flaw with it: I'm ramping up pressure on these supposedly heroic Democrats for abandoning Speaker Pelosi. Talk is cheap. We expect action . Seeing Jason Altmire and other 'off-the-reservation-Democrats' signing a discharge petition would be an act of good faith. If representatives don't take that step, I'll assume that these representatives are all talk. That doesn't impress me.
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she's encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
Here's why they've adopted this strategy:
Pelosi's gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months, even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.That's a stupid gamble. Democrats will be surprised when Republicans gain House seats. This issue is animating people. People are demanding action, not statements. People don't care how many speeches these vulnerable Democrats make if it doesn't lead to lower gas and diesel prices.
This is another too-clever-by-half tactic. Ms. Pelosi thinks that letting vulnerable Democrats sound independent will let them off the hook. I'll bet that small businesses and OTR truckers won't let them off the hook. That won't happen until they see action.
Listen to the Democrats' arrogance in this paragraph:
Democratic House aides say the energy agenda has been carefully gamed out in strategy sessions, and Pelosi always intended to take heat on gas prices while tacitly encouraging more vulnerable Democrats to publicly disagree with her and show their independence.I repeat: Any Democrat who doesn't sign the AEA's discharge petition and vote for the AEA will be exposed as not voting to cut gas prices. Voters/consumers don't care about who gives a nice speech on the issue. They're only worried about seeing gas prices drop.
Those that don't get things done will be hurt this November.
BTW, the Heritage Foundation is encouraging bloggers and those that read blogs to start talking more about discharge petitions. I heartily concur.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 05-Aug-08 05:29 PM
You are not the only one thinking this...
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/05/boehner-calls-bluff-of-pro-drilling-dems-prove-youre-not-liars-by-joining-with-us-now/
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Aug-08 05:44 PM
EXCELLENT!!!
Talk is Cheap
Talk is cheap amongst politicians. It appears as though it's particularly cheap if it's coming from Jason Altmire. Rep. Altmire has said that he's pro-drilling, which I'm betting is a popular position in his district near Pittsburgh. When you compare what he hasn't done with what he's said, one questions his veracity. This press release by Melissa Hart does a good job questioning the man that defeated her in the 2006 midterms:
"Altmire continues to hold news conferences and issue statements purporting to support utilization of more coal, however he has failed to match his actions with his rhetoric. It has become a regular event for Altmire to pay lip service to a popular issue, only to refuse to act on it. He continues be in lock step with his Washington, D.C. leaders who oppose coal-to-liquid technology and refuse to schedule a vote on the House floor to move this technology forward to commercial use," said Melissa Hart.It's insulting to hear Democrats profess their so-called support for drilling for oil and mining for coal as part of an all-of-the-above energy solution.
She added, "the discharge petition process is obviously not the normal route to getting an important issue to the House floor for up-or-down vote. However, Jason's chosen Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has left few options since she continues to manipulate the voting schedule to prevent energy legislation from being considered. With Altmire's support, she has even cancelled committee meetings to avoid votes to open new areas to exploration. Altmire should sign the discharge petitions to bring this and other energy legislation to the House floor. It's long overdue that Altmire stand up for the best interests of his district and not San Francisco."
Let's remember that Democrats are the party that wants to save the planet. Democrats are the party that swooned when Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance. Democrats pronounced Al Gore a visionary for his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Let's remember this snippet from Barack Obama's speech at the Xcel Center the night of the last primary:
...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...Does this really sound like someone who's ready to jump on the drilling bandwagon? Or does that sound more like a man who'd rather watch An Inconvenient Truth? There isn't much difference between what Sen. Obama says and what Jason Altmire says. I suspect that's because there isn't a deep philosophical difference on global warming. I'll bet that's because both gentlemen are just saying what they think the public wants to hear.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment 1 by Wampa at 05-Aug-08 08:13 PM
The reason not to buy into drilling as the monolithic solution is that it will not solve the problem.
The US hit peak oil production in the '70s. We can drill everywhere and US oil production will still continue to decline. Drill, Drill, Drill is a Republican smokescreen to protect their big donors in the oil industry.
We have three choices:
1. Get more oil (not likely due being past peak oil)
2. Conserve (will make us more energy independent in the short run)
3. Invest in and develop renewable energy sources.
We can try all three in the short term but eventually we will be stuck with just #3. Altmire is looking out for our future by pursuing renewable energy while telling the truth about the future of oil.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Aug-08 08:54 PM
The AEA supports all aspects that you're talking about: drilling, conservation, renewables. There isn't a justifiable reason not to support it.
Will Udall's Flip-Flop Cost Him This November?
During a recent debate, Rep. Mark Udall said he would not vote to adjourn congress until they had an energy bill. Then he skipped the vote :
At a televised debate July 28, Colorado congressmen and Democratic senatorial candidate Mark Udall said he would not vote to adjourn congress until they had an energy bill.Whether breaking his promise will cost Udall this November remains to be seen. What's certain, though, is that Republicans won't let go of this if their lives depended on it. That's because their political lives do depend on it.
Udall then skipped the vote, which passed 213-212 without a single Republican voting in favor. Had Udall been there and lived up to his campaign promise, the motion to adjourn would not have passed. Udall has been heavily criticized by television and newspapers in Colorado, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been having a field day mocking Udall for his broken promise. And it's been a close race between Udall and Republican congressman Bob Schafer before Udall missed the vote.
We're seeing Democrats cracking under the House Republicans' protests. This isn't a narrowly spread phenomenon either. Mark Udall is only one Democrat who made a significant mistake. If you saw Ms. Pelosi's interview on This Week, you saw a woman falling to pieces. It isn't just limited to Ms. Pelosi either. Does anyone seriously think that Barack Obama would've changed his position on drilling 3 times in a week if Democrats at all levels weren't feeling the heat?
The Colorado race is one that I'll certainly be watching. If Rep. Udall doesn't win, I suspect that we'll look back at his breaking his promise on energy as the turning point.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 06-Aug-08 09:26 AM
Keep in mind Udal was screwed by Nancy Pelosi. He was in Washington on the quickly called vote and trying to get their to vote.
The vote ended because Nancy Pelosi shut off the vote so she could provide the one vote margin (in part before Udal got there).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-08 11:09 AM
He got there a day late.
Paris Hilton: I'm Ready to Lead
Paris Hilton created a video mocking John McCain in the funniest video I've seen in ages. The problem is, it'll wind up mocking Sen. Obama more.Here's the video:
The reason why it'll hurt Obama more is because the plan that Ms. Hilton laid out is almost identical to Sen. McCain's. What's even better about the video is that the McCain campaign siezed the opportunity to mock Sen. Obama:
In the unkindest cut of all, McCain's spokesperson Tucker Bounds tells TMZ that on the subject of energy, Paris is deeper than Barack. He says, "Sounds like Paris is taking the 'All of the Above' energy approach that John McCain has advocated, both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama ."Whether Ms. Hilton has a "more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama" is open to debate. I suspect, though, that Ms. Hilton won't change her energy policy as often as Sen. Obama .
Originally posted Tuesday, August 5, 2008, revised 06-Aug 12:07 PM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 06-Aug-08 10:20 AM
She has a better plan for solving the energy crisis than Obama and she's WAY better looking than the Wrinkly White Dude...hmmmmmm.
Day 4: Bringing In the Big Guns
When House Republicans gather this morning, they'll be joined by Newt Gingrich , the man behind the first House Revolution. This is the part that should scare Democrats in general and Nancy Pelosi in particular:
Gingrich plans to meet with House Republicans Wednesday morning to discuss their continued protest of Democratic leaders' decision to recess Congress without holding a vote on legislation expanding drilling.The reason why Ms. Pelosi should be worried about Newt mapping strategy with the current House GOP leadership is because he's the best tactician/strategist this side of Mr. Rove. There's another reason why Ms. Pelsoi should be afraid: Newt achieved hero status with conservatives when he engineered the Contract With America. Having Newt join in plotting strategy with this new batch of conservatives tells movement conservatives to get on board. Newt's siding with this group will get the fundraising going full steam, too.
Gingrich referred to a new poll conducted by Dave Winston that found that three out of four Americans believe that Congress should vote on a bill expanding drilling.Thanks to Politico, we know why she cut power. She's hoping to protect the freshmen that brought her into the Speaker's chair. The bad news for her is that the American people demand action. Other than siding with the environutters and other K Street lobbyists, those freshmen haven't done a thing. Those freshmen have sided more with K Street lobbyists than with Main Street citizens.
He also blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for adjourning Congress and shutting down the power to the microphones on the House floor instead of allowing Republicans to speak out about the need for more drilling. He said that decision shows that she is running a "petty dictatorship." "During the energy fight, she cut off the energy to the House floor so [members] couldn't talk about energy," he said.
I'll bet the proverbial ranch that Newt emphasizes David Winston's polling results. This is such a huge winner for Republicans. Democrats are desperately trying to hide their anti-drilling history. Don't expect it to work. After constantly hailing Al Gore's global warming myth, they can't now tell people that they're drillng advocates.
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2008 5:05 AM
No comments.
When CW Is Wrong
Dick Morris has penned a brilliant column on why the lagging economy won't automatically hurt Republicans this November. Here's the most impressive part of the column:
[Clinton's] promise to "focus like a laser beam" on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn't buy it and voted for Hillary.I said last spring that Sen. Obama would have difficulty getting elected because voters would turn against him when they got serious. I think I said that people will get serious about electing the next leader of the free world, not a prom king. I didn't think he exuded the gravitas that people expect.
So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?
During the primaries, his blank slate worked to his advantage. He delivered optimistic speeches, causing people to think that he was like them. Because he didn't have a record to tell them who he was, they simply imputed their values and priorities into him.
That blank slate now works against him. With financial crises looming, with gas prices skyrocketing, people will find it difficult to trust someone that inexperienced and risky.
After excoriating Sen. Obama, Morris then justifies voting for Sen. McCain:
It almost doesn't matter that McCain is not an economist and avows ignorance of what Thomas Carlyle called the "dismal science." We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won't raise taxes.During the campaign, conservatives who were worried could comfort themselves with the thought that a McCain administration would possibly have a Treasury Secretary Gramm. Now that that won't happen, they'll have to 'settle' for Carly Fiorina, no slouch herself.
Sen. McCain also benefits from being right about the Surge. People will give him the benefit of the doubt on economics because he's gotten another big decision right. Call it the trust factor.
When in turbulent times, the American people generally vote for the man with a track record. This year, that description only fits John McCain.
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2008 5:54 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck Hyde at 06-Aug-08 08:38 AM
Obama was a hit during the primary because he was saying what the audiences wanted to hear. It's easy to do during the primaries because of the low voter turnout. Most of the people who vote in primaies are hard core partisans, it's preaching to the choir. In the general election his message is a dud because there is no substance or, more importantly, consistency. During the primaries he was the King, now he's the emperor with no clothes.
This Will Ruin Mark Udall's Day...
The NRSC put together a devastating video on Rep. Mark Udall. Here's the video:
As I noted here, Rep. Udall promised to keep the House in session until an energy bill passed. The video shows that Rep. Udall didn't return to Washington until after the vote to adjourn had been taken because he attended a fundraiser. I'm betting that the NRSC is planning on crucifying Rep. Udall with this video. Bob Schafer caught up with Rep. Udall approximately 2 weeks ago.
If the NRSC makes a series of shorter commercials, this could give Schafer a big advantage this November.
This is just more proof that the Democrats are doing everything they can to hand a bunch of elections to the Republicans. To their credit, Republicans are extending this advantage with their protest.
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck Hyde at 06-Aug-08 05:30 PM
I think this gas issue is a winner for the GOP if they are smart enough to stick with it. The reality is that they don't actually have anymore of a plan than the Dems for solving the current oil crisis. I think their long term plan is better though. But plan or not, perception is everything with voters. They are for drilling which the voters are and this protest is showing they want to do something, whereas the Dems want to vacation.
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 07-Aug-08 10:27 AM
It's a valid gotcha, if the guy said that, than did that. It goes to something very fundamental. Trustworthiness. Coleman and Franken are wrestling with that dimension, as are Bachmann and Tinklenberg. On it, I go with Franken and Bachmann as the ones in each pair I would buy a used car from --- but Tink and MB, the used car thing, I'd walk or bicycle rather than touch either of that pair. But trustworthiness, as it is perceived regardless of what a person's true heart might say, is something voters should try to discern and weigh very heavily.
But at bottom, it is a subjective perception, not anything objective, in most cases. If the guy said and did inconsistent things, it is a very bad instance; what's his overall track record and his opponent's? These out of Minnesota blurbs are hard to see total truth in because it's anecdotal, not definitive or statistical evidence.
