August 9-10, 2008
Aug 09 10:41 Tinklenberg Dodges EFCA Question Aug 09 10:57 Defeat Mark Olson Aug 09 17:16 Kirsten Powers: John Edwards is a Phony Aug 09 18:16 Let's Hope Democrats Keep Believing This Aug 10 01:45 No Fault Foreign Policy vs. Pro-Democracy Foreign Policy? Aug 10 02:43 Fisking Tinklenberg's Editorial Aug 10 10:26 That's My Kind Of Republican!!! Aug 10 11:31 SD Union-Tribune Wants Offshore Drilling, Nuclear Power Aug 10 21:46 Unmasking Tinklenberg's Real Energy Agenda?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Tinklenberg Dodges EFCA Question
Is it just me or does this video show that El Tinklenberg wants nothing to do with answering any questions about EFCA?
Apparently, Mr. Tinklenberg is still in a hurry. He was in a hurry in this video, too:
According to this post , Tinklenberg was a little more talkative:
Questioner: I just wanted to know where you stood on the card check issue.Notice that I said Mr. Tinklenberg was a little more talkative . I suspect that other Democrats want nothing to do with that question, either. It's obvious that DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez would rather litigate than debate :
Tinklenberg: I support it.
Questioner: Are you concerned at all,there's been some rumors about people who have opposed the card check have been intimidated by the union to enforce this limit on the cards. What do you think should be done about that?
Tinklenberg: As I said before, i support it.
Questioner: Even though there's intimidation, Sir?
Tinklenberg: The intimidation has been on the employers' side.
Former Sen. George McGovern, yesterday in the WSJ . H/T to Gary. I'll have more details later, but they are still trying to silence our ads rather than debate the point . Mr. Melendez, my offer is still good: Let's debate the facts, and I promise to quote at least Sen. McGovern as a good Democrat.What makes me think that Mr. Melendez wants to avoid King like vampires try avoiding wooden stakes?
Lord knows I don't make a habit of agreeing with Democrats. Nonetheless, I'll agree with George McGovern this time without hesitation. Sen. McGovern highlights the problem in this paragraph:
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder , free from fear of reprisal.Having a union steward looking over your shoulder isn't a free election. Union officials want more power. The more union shops, the more power they have. Does anyone really think that these union officials won't try exerting alot of pressure during this time?
I remember when Fingerhut was faced with a union drive. Both sides put their best arguments foward. Both sides competed for every vote. With EFCA, a stealth campaign can happen. With EFCA, union officials can get enough signatures to establish a union without management getting the opportunity to present their arguments.
Another thing worth noting is that, with EFCA, union officials are potentially the election judges. As it currently sits, the NLRB provides the election judges. Which do you think will be more impartial?
By supporting EFCA, Mr. Tinklenberg is telling workers that he supports union activists, not the employees. By supporting EFCA, Mr. Tinklenberg is saying that he isn't in favor of a fairly administered election process. By supporting EFCA, Mr. Tinklenberg is doing what the union who supply his campaign workers want him to.
Forgive me if I don't see the virtue in that.
Posted Saturday, August 9, 2008 10:41 AM
No comments.
Defeat Mark Olson
According to this article , the SD-16 GOP endorsed Mark Olson to replace Betsy Wergin in the Minnesota Senate. In endorsing Mark Olson, they have clothed themselves in shame and dishonor. Clear thinking people don't endorse a convicted wife beater.
I think it's important that Republicans police themselves when this type of result happens. That's why I'm calling on the people of SD-16 to correct the wrong done by the endorsing committee. That's why I'm calling on the rank-and-file to put Alison Krueger over the top on September 9th.
I've met Ms. Krueger. She's an impressive lady. She's smart and energetic. She on the right side of the issues. Most importantly, she doesn't carry with her the baggage that Mr. Olson does.
If any of this blog's readers live in SD-16, I urge you to vote for Alison Krueger. I also urge you to work on her behalf. For those living outside SD-16, I'd strongly encourage you to contribute to Ms. Krueger's campaign.
I believe in the endorsing process. That doesn't mean I think endorsing conventions are infallible. In this instance, they made a major mistake.
Now it's time for the rank-and-file to clean up their mess.
Posted Saturday, August 9, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment 1 by I.R. Informed at 10-Aug-08 11:00 PM
You believe in the endorsement process only when the endorsed candidate pleases you (I am still waiting for Brodkorb's analysis on this one since he has been so hard on Olson)! Not only did Olson win, he won in a landslide (97-40). If Krueger is such a strong candidate, what went wrong at the endorsing convention? She was also hand-picked by Senator Wergin to run for her seat.
Were you at the endorsing convention? What do you think actually happened to let this "personna non grata"(your words not mine) win so convincingly?
I am not the biggest Olson fan on earth, but he has always treated me with respect and he is a stalwart social/fiscal conservative. He and his wife have appeared to iron things out and are going through counseling. Can you forgive a man for past failures?
Lastly, by going so strongly after Olson, how is this going to reflect on the State Republican Party. Olson has many loyal supporters (including House Reps) who will not back down when challenged. Such a fight between those who are whining about the endorsing results and Olson's ardent supporters would only further tarnish the Republican brand further in Minnesota.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Aug-08 12:40 AM
I guess this proves that cronyism is a tough thing to overcome, even if you're a wifebeater.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 14-Aug-08 12:19 AM
Might be interesting to get Michele Bachmann's take on Mark Olson - he was her partner on PRT legislation, and legislation about promoting the "christian nation". He along with Bachmann brought David Barton from Wall Builders to promote fabricated quotes from the founding fathers showing this was a "Christian nation."
Also, what's Edwatch's take on Mark Olson?
It's interesting that you commented publically about this on August 9. Michael Brodkorb went public yesterday - after the Strib had an oped which condemned Olson, and mentioned Norm Coleman:
"Whatever their reasons, the GOP delegates of District 16 have put their state party - and particularly the Norm Coleman reelection campaign - in an awkward spot. How can Republicans fault DFL Senate candidate Al Franken for writing jokes they deem antifemale when they have put their official arms around a candidate convicted of assaulting his wife?"
Worth asking: how come Krueger didn't win? Did she make phone calls, and do the organizing to get her delegates out to the convention? What about Wergin? Or was the assumption that Krueger had the endorsement in the bag, so didn't need to work?
Kirsten Powers: John Edwards is a Phony
Hooray for Kirsten Powers. We now have proof that there's at least one Democrat with some moral outrage. In this NY Post column , Ms. Powers gives the "Silky Phony" a total smackdown. Here's the most vicious attack:
But something about Edwards always seemed uniquely phony, even by the standards of politics. Actually, nothing about him seemed authentic.I've never understood John Edwards' appeal. There was nothing about him that made me think he wasn't a shallow human being. His populist message didn't jive with his elitist lifestyle.
Who was he? Apparently, whatever he thought people wanted him to be. In 2000, he helped found the "New Democrat Coalition" for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) along with Sen. Joe Lieberman and others. Then, for his 2004 presidential run, he staked out the populist "Two Americas" theme. By 2008, he'd completed a total morph into a class warrior who pandered to the farthest reaches of the Democratic Left.Liberal pundits across America saw Edwards as articulate, charismatic and centrist. I'll grant that he's a smooth talker but that's the farthest I'll go. He certainly isn't a centrist. Ms. Powers is right: He's simply a phony.
The poor suddenly became a great concern to him after his 2004 loss, yet he saw no disconnect in building a massive mansion as he crusaded for the poverty-stricken. He discovered New Orleans when he wanted to make his 2008 campaign announcement, but was nowhere to be seen back when the tragedy occurred.
The job Kirsten Powers did pales in comparison to Andy's smackdown :
Any man or woman that cheats on their spouse is a low life. Especially those that run around pretending that 'they are the one and only'. Let's not forget that his wife is dying of cancer. That became an issue last year during the Democratic primary battle. Elizabeth Edwards announced she was terminal with cancer and John Edwards decided to keep running. He said she'd want him to keep running.Amen, Andy.
Posted Saturday, August 9, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment 1 by Rose at 09-Aug-08 05:46 PM
Now it's time for all good liberals to "think about the children," specifically John Edwards' newest baby girl...John, John!!! It's not about you....it's about the child! This child needs food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, a father figure (try hard on this one, John), and a moral compass (might want to pass on this one, John).
I have only two words of advice for Rielle Hunter: "Gloria Allred". You need a shark with a heart. She will help you, just google her.
Hmmmm -- so John Edwards thinks he's off the hook!!! I'll bet half of his interview on Nightline was a lie. You know darn well that he had sex with Rielle Hunter the last time in Beverly Hills,and, now he's lying about holding up his new baby girl in the National Enquirer photo, On Nightline, Edwards said that he has "no idea" where the photo came from or who is in it. Is this idiot for real? This guy is just a pathological liar!!! It's so rare to see one on tape! John Edwards doesn't have to agree to a paternity test,.the child support judge is going to demand it. Get busy!!
Now, for all you John Edwards supporters who are let down,what in the hell were you thinking? Couldn't you spot this phony the second you saw him? I did. Edwards made his money suing doctors!!!!! He is a professional liar,.just like Obama!!! You're all smucks!!!
Obviously Obama knew about the allegations against Edwards for a long time. If Obama didn't, then he's a dope! So, right up until Friday, Edwards was still on the short list for VP.
Yes, this whole "affair" shows that Obama is stupid and needs vetting team (not sleaze hiders) for the VP spot! Now, let's show that Obama knew about the affair and still wanted Edwards.
Let's Hope Democrats Keep Believing This
Democrat John Yarmuth might be one of the one-term wonders come Election Day. According to this article , Yarmuth doesn't think the gas price issue is that big a deal:
"I understand why the Republicans think they have that issue, but the vast majority of the American people blame George Bush and the oil companies for high gas prices," Yarmuth told PolitickerKY.com on Wednesday. "So, I think that is an issue that ultimately will not help them."I've talked with more than a few people while filling my SUV. Of the people I've talked with, none have brought up 'Big Oil'. When I've told them that 85% of our nation's known oil reserves were offlimits and that Democrats refuse to tap into any of those known reserves, they ask why they haven't. My standard reply is "God only knows" or something like that.
Democrats know that this isn't the case. Since Republicans started pushing this issue, Democrats have done everything possible to blur the distinctions between their do nothing plan and the Republicans' 'all-of-the-above' plan known as the American Energy Act. Barack Obama had three different positions in less than 4 days.
Perhaps that's because of this information :
When voters are broken down by their self-designated ideologies, the pattern is similar: 84% of conservatives think offshore drilling should be allowed, but only 31% of liberals agree. Perhaps key to the presidential election, 54% of moderates also favor lifting the ban.Let's see how Sen. Obama's views are playing. According to this poll , they aren't playing well:
By substantial margins, voters believe that McCain's top priority is finding new sources of energy while Obama is more focused on reducing the amount of energy we consume.In other words, the data thus far says that Rep. Yarmuth is as wrong as wrong can get. It's been my observation that politicians get beat when they're that out of touch with voters on the dominant issue of a campaign.
Data released yesterday shows that voters overwhelmingly believe it is more important to find new sources of energy . Sixty-seven percent (67%) believe McCain shares this priority while just 29% believe Obama holds that same view.
Posted Saturday, August 9, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 10-Aug-08 03:43 AM
I assume on November 5, 2008 he won't be singing the same tune when he loses by a margin far bigger than the 5,921. How big Northup's margin is will be a sign how well the Republicans will do nationally.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
No Fault Foreign Policy vs. Pro-Democracy Foreign Policy?
One of the central questions this election is what type of foreign policy we want. Based on their competing statements, it's apparent that an Obama administration wouldn't assign blame to aggressors. Actually, an Obama administration would assign blame on aggressors and victims. John Hinderaker's post at Powerlineblog shows the intellectual incoherence of Sen. Obama's foreign policy and the comprehensive grasp of geopolitical factors to be weighed of Sen. McCain's foreign policy. Here's one of Sen. Obama's statements on the Russian-Georgian conflict:
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a written statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."Saying that Georgia "should show restraint" is like telling Kuwait in 1990 to show restraint after Iraq invaded. Here's Sen. McCain's statement:
"[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.Sen. McCain's communication has the right tone to it, calling for the US to work with the EU and the OSCE in putting diplomatic pressure on Russia while calling on Russia to "immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."
"The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen."
Instead of making a more definitive statement on a path forward, the Obama campaign made this statement:
"John McCain's top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government," said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the "appearance of a conflict of interest" was a consequence of McCain's too-close ties to lobbyists.Here's how Sen. McCain replied:
The Obama campaign's attacks on Randy Scheunemann are disgraceful. Mr. Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region. Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Senator Obama's judgment, it answers them.Team Obama would have us believe that advocating for a fledgling democracy in an important and dangerous region is a bad thing. Whatever happened to the "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty" Democratic Party? Has that Democratic Party disappeared forever? While I can't say that definitely, I can't disprove it based on the Obama campaign's statements either.
This is another example of why you shouldn't send a toy messiah to do a man's job .
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 10-Aug-08 03:38 AM
Gary:
Part of the problem is with the exception of send our troops into some African country like we did for hunger in the 1990's Obama has a clue how to use the military or threaten to use it, but we don't like it. His rule seems to be when your average rational person thinks it might need to be used or threaten he does the exact opposite which is clearly say it's not being used.
I believe that is what encouraged Hitler in the 1930's when people didn't care he went into the Rhineland, Austira, they gave him part of Czecksolvikia only he took it all anyway.
He did read his world history?
Oh I forgot he still's trying to figure out when America was fulfilling it's instead of now.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eriic zaetsch at 10-Aug-08 08:50 AM
Bush has not been pro-democracy. He's installed puppet regimes, and had the local people continue to resist in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Saudi monarchy, the Gulf States, etc., he has continued a long-standing policy of oil-flow stability over principle.
Not that I believe there'd be a change when Obama is elected. The State Department has shown continuity.
And to equate military interventionism with foreigh policy has been the biggest cause of the chickenhawk neocon failure, so please avoid it in your thinking.
At least McCain has a sane stance against torture, having experienced it. He'd be a breath of fresh air, that way.
And, Gary, any word on when Cheney's speech at the Xcel center is scheduled? Will Coleman give his warm-up act speech? He should. He's been mentored that way.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-09 09:52 AM
Puppet regimes??? That's insulting. I've watched Iraq since 2003 & Afghanistan since 2001. How dare you call a duly elected government a puppet regime.
As for the Obama administration's "continuity", I don't recall the Bush administration dropping the ball when a banker walks into an embassy & tells them that his son is a terrorist & that they should take precautions to prevent him committing a terrorist act. I don't recall the DHS Secretary saying that "the system worked" after a terrorist attack. For that matter, I only recall one terrorist attack in the U.S. under President Bush's watch.
President Obama has already had 3 terrorist attacks in his first year. Perhaps he should've been paying more attention to the existing terrorist threats rather than going into campaign mode to sell a health care bill that nobody wants.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-08 09:52 AM
Eric, It isn't accurate to call the Afghani government a puppet regime. Fledgling, yes; puppet, not a chance.
Ditto with Iraq.
I wonder how their governments would look compared with the US government 5 years after achieving statehood.
Fisking Tinklenberg's Editorial
Sixth District DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg has a Your Turn editorial in this morning's St. Cloud Times that's simply too error-laden to not fisk. Mr. Tinklenberg couldn't even get past the second paragraph before saying something foolish:
Yet, while commuters pay exorbitant prices for gasoline, truckers are in trouble with diesel fuel at well more than $4 a gallon, and farmers face concerns about energy and feed costs, Congress remains locked in a partisan faceoff.As I pointed out in the comments, Congress isn't locked in a partisan faceoff. Nancy Pelosi's Democrats voted to adjourn for 5 weeks without Congress considering any energy bills where Republicans could offer an amendment. Each of the non-energy energy bills that the Democrats offered were offered under a closed rule, meaning that amendments couldn't be offered by either Republicans or Democrats.
Here's another Mr. Tinklenberg's plan:
I advocate the following:First, let's dispose of the 3 percent myth :
- Drill domestically for more oil. No matter how much more drilling we do, the United States still has only 3 percent of the world's total supply of oil, and consumes 25 percent of the world's daily supply. Domestic drilling is only one part of a comprehensive solution. Drilling in ANWR is not worth the risk, but a good place to start would be the 68 million acres the oil companies have leased but have not yet drilled.
- Negotiate limited additional exploration and drilling rights. Any new drilling permits should be approved on a case-by-case basis with oil companies required to post a substantial bond to guarantee site restoration and/or cleanup of any spills related to the drilling.
- Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development. American innovation is our key to an independent energy future. While there is general agreement in Congress that economic incentives are necessary to develop alternative energy technologies, the parties quickly split when the discussion turns to paying for them. We can start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and using the money to pay for these incentives.
- Increase miles-per-gallon standards for cars. While domestic automobile manufacturers are beginning to respond to market forces by building smaller, lighter and alternative-fuel cars and trucks, an incremental increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would assure that this trend continues.
MYTH: The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world's oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won't affect prices much if at all.Next, let's demolish Mr. Tinklenberg's CAFE Standards argument :
FACT: This estimate of 2-6% of the world's oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.
In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia . This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.
Resources from oil shale and additional oil resources that are likely to be discovered are not included in the estimates of American oil supplies.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America's dependence on oil by:Here's another feature of Mr. Tinklenberg's plan:
Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue "attribute-based standards," which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.
Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development.I wonder if that's Mr. Tinklenberg endorsment of Rep. Bachmann's Promoting New American Energy Act . I'm betting not but still...
Finally, there's this:
Maybe we can't afford to do everything, but the people are tired of doing nothing. It's time to move beyond false promises and political bickering and get started on the hard work and tough choices that will produce a forward-thinking plan that is in the best interest of the American people, not oil companies.I'd first like to ask why "we can't afford to do everything." Is there something other than Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's Democrats preventing it? Would it cost the federal government anything to open up the OCS or ANWR or the Green River shale oil deposits?
Personally, I wonder what Mr. Tinklenberg is talking about in terms of "tough choices that will produce a forward-thinking plan." Since when is doing the common sense thing a tough choice? Since when is producing "a forward-thinking plan" a difficult thing? Might Mr. Tinklenberg mean that it's difficult for Democrats to vote for such a plan because their environutter allies would cut off the campaign contributions spigot?
While it's true that it would cost us money to write tax incentives for "for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development", it's also true that it's smart policy which should be implemented immediately.
Finally, isn't it true that the best way to diminish the oil companies' profits is to increase oil production? The only thing standing in the way of that are Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's Democrats.
Shouldn't Pelosi's and Reid's Democrats cease with their obstructionist tactics immediately? Shouldn't Mr. Tinklenberg call out his DFL allies for voting to adjourn without voting on the Republians' American Energy Act?
That's what should happen but we know that it won't. That'd take political courage, something that Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't seem to have an overabundance of.
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:52 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 10-Aug-08 03:26 AM
Gary:
I'm surprised you passed up on this comment, "Drilling in ANWR is not worth the risk ..."
Excuse me. Experts claim that ANWR can produce a million barrells a day. Where's the risk?
Experts say we only need 2,000 acres to drill in ANWR where's the risk when you already want us to drill in 68 million other acres?
Michelle Bachman has pointed out if production in Alaska drops below 300,000 barrells per day we have to close the Alaska pipeline. Isn't that a risk to avoid?
The point is the only risk you have by supporting drilling for oil in ANWR is you lose the donations and the votes of environmental wackos like Al Gore.
Tink that is a risk worth taking if you care about the country.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 10-Aug-08 08:41 AM
You write about inklenberg's policy, today.
Tomorrow, it will be ... ?
Wait Gary, sooner or later he'll reach and say what you want to hear. But then he'll pass on to the next day's version.
Is he pro-choice, anti-choice - it appears he agrees with his friends, if they choose to endorse him but other than that he's a choice waffle, syrup and all.
He has not raised much money.
The big boost in the first cycle of reporting, not the last quarter, was the union PAC money.
I don't believe he has much progressive love, but I cannot say for sure. I was disappointed the Frankens gave him a contribution. They are progressive people. So far, that's the most critical error I have seen Franken make.
My local highway sign barometer sees a big Franken sign at one location, no Tinklenberg sign. It might mean he's too short of cash to have many signs printed, it might mean people will put a Franken sign out, not a Tinklenberg one. In Anoka County folks know Elwyn Tinklenberg.
Why he does not simply run IP is my question - where his stance really fits; why does he run as a Democrat? He was real tight with Ventura and Barkley in the past; and that IP convention, their regulars endorsed him handily. But Bob Anderson is their November candidate. Go figure all that out.
Tinklenberg should have run IP, and let a progressive run DFL Sixth District - no sheep's clothing sort, a real undeniable Democrat; not the choice of the IP insider cabal.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-08 09:49 AM
why does he run as a Democrat?
That's the only way he gets fed matching funds.
Comment 4 by Walter hanson at 10-Aug-08 09:54 AM
Gary I thought Federal matching funds only applied to Presidential races. So there went that reason. Of course without environmental money he theory needs matching funds.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
That's My Kind Of Republican!!!
John Culberson's use of technology and the internet has helped fuel the House Republicans' rebellion against Speaker Pelosi's dictatorial closing of debate on energy bills. This Houston Chronicle article explains Rep. Culberson's motivation:
His text messages may be cryptic and hurried on the instant messaging network known as Twitter (www.twitter.com). And his shaky and furtive camera-phone interviews with colleagues posted on Qik (www.qik.com) may resemble hostage videos. But they are vanguards of the future for a technology buff who still lovingly describes his first telescope.If Pelosi's Democrats want to pick this fight, I say let's get ready to rumble. Does anyone think that anything less than 75 percent of the American people would support Rep. Culberson's use of Qik and Twitter after Ms. Pelosi's Democrats voted to cut off debate on pro drilling legislation to go on a 5 week vacation?
House rules bundle restrictions on state-of-the-art electronics with provisions governing "decorum and comportment" on the House floor.
Lawmakers "may not wear a hat or remain by the clerk's desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots," the rules state. "A person may not smoke or use a wireless telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House."
In practice, lawmakers routinely use cell phones and BlackBerries on the House floor for text messaging, e-mail and access to the Internet. The sergeant-at-arms only enforces a restriction on talking on the cell phones from the House floor.
Pelosi continues to reject GOP calls for a House vote on its plan to allow offshore oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But she has no immediate plans to try to tighten House rules to further restrict use of electronic devices.
That means that Republicans will be free to continue their Culberson-inspired electronic insurgency from the House floor through the start of the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 25. Republicans will be positioned to draw contrasts between their mock legislative efforts to cut gasoline prices and the theatrics of the Democrats' presidential convention.
'A bit of a contrarian'
No one should be surprised by Culberson, 51, leading the GOP effort to outflank the media blackout imposed by Pelosi, says a colleague, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands. "John has always been a bit of a contrarian," Brady says. "If he can't solve a problem one way, he stays on it like a bulldog until he finds another way."
I don't think that's the fight Ms. Pelosi or her Politburo want to have, especially after denying any amendments, whether they were from Republicans or Democrats, on any energy legislation.
Political scientist Robert Stein of Rice University says Culberson has shown his knack for efficiently and effectively positioning himself for potential political advantage.Rep. Culberson needs to be re-elected, if for no other reason than that he's new media savvy. God knows we don't have enough Republicans who make efficient use of technology to get their message out. (Fortunately, I'm represented by one of the best in the House at that, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Rep. Bachmann has her own blog , where she makes frequent use of her YouTube account.)
"He knows how to craft an issue and deliver the message," Stein says.
National attention as a cutting-edge, tech-savvy congressman could help Culberson offset some of the financial handicap that he faces in the fall campaign against a well-financed rival, Democrat Michael Skelly.
Culberson has raised $983,200 so far, compared with nearly $1.5 million raised by Skelly, according to federal campaign finance reports.
"Culberson has generated a story line that distinguishes him from the crowd," Stein says. "He has positioned himself as a hero of technology."
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:27 AM
No comments.
SD Union-Tribune Wants Offshore Drilling, Nuclear Power
The San Diego Union-Tribune has published an editorial from their editorial board in this morning's edition calling for drilling off California's coast. In addition to that, they're also calling for building more nuclear power plants:
When a majority of Californians signal to pollsters their support for offshore oil drilling, something dramatic is occurring. In this case, it is the price of gasoline lurching toward $5 a gallon. Suddenly, Americans have awakened with a hangover to their perilous reliance on foreign oil, which has escalated alarmingly since the oil shocks of three decades ago.While I think that MMGW is myth, not science, I don't have a problem joining with the SDUT in calling for drilling off California's coast and more nuclear power plants. My theory is that there's plenty of room on the bandwagon as long as they're heading in the right direction. It's all about building a big coalition that puts enough pressure on Pelosi's Democrats to capitulate. It's all about getting the moratoria lifted so that we can become more energy independent.
Since the first Arab embargo in 1973, dependence on imported petroleum has jumped from 25 percent of U.S. consumption to 70 percent. Apart from the far-reaching national security implications of this strategic vulnerability, American consumers now find themselves at the mercy of oligarchic foreign producers who effectively control pump prices in Santee.
No wonder Californians are willing to take another look at coastal oil development, which has been politically verboten since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill jolted the state's environmental consciousness.
Over time, the entire world must wean itself from fossil fuels in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This means a variety of alternative energies must be developed,from massive wind farms and solar installations to hydrogen-based processes and biofuels made from algae or other plants that do not consume large amounts of arable land and drive up food costs. And when it comes to greenhouse gases, an urgent shift to nuclear power for electricity generation would eliminate a key contributor to global warming.
But for the next half century or longer, as the transition to noncarbon fuels plays out, the United States will continue to consume petroleum as the lifeblood of its economy and standard of living. No amount of conservation, an important tool in its own right, will eliminate the need for increased production in the near term. So, unless we are willing to become almost totally dependent on oil pumped from the ground in the volatile Middle East and Persian Gulf regions, a very dangerous course, the United States must boost its own output significantly.
I'm not so worried about eliminating all imports as I'm worried about eliminating imports from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez. I'm not worried about the oil imported from Canada or Mexico.
The editorial board has it right when it says this:
No amount of conservation, an important tool in its own right, will eliminate the need for increased production in the near term.How does a farmer picking his crops conserve? How does an OTR trucker hauling those farmers' goods to market conserve? The UT is exactly right in pointing this out. I'd further add that I'd rather see 'R & D' based conservation than the 'let's turn down the thermostat' style conservation. 'R & D' based conservation is using technology to make more efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. that allow us to maintain our standard of living.
While I don't agree with their reason, I still agree with this policy:
an urgent shift to nuclear power for electricity generation would eliminate a key contributor to global warming.I'm not worried about MMGW. I'm concerned about dramatically lowering electric bills, though, which is what nuclear power will do.
This page long has joined the chorus opposed to the mere prospect of any drilling rigs in San Diego County's coastal waters. But circumstances, most notably America's increasing dependence on foreign supplies, have changed. So has the safety record of offshore drilling operations along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. The risk of another massive oil spill has been greatly reduced by improved technology and federally enforced safety standards.This is another way of saying "we were wrong in continuing our objections." Like I said, we've got plenty of room on this bandwagon, no matter what their prior beliefs were. They're right in saying that "the safety record of offshore drilling operations" has improved.
Here's the closing paragraph of the editorial:
And while Congress is opening up coastal waters to spur domestic production, it should lift the ban on drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vast untapped petroleum supply that is far removed from human activity.I wholeheartedly agree, not just because it's "far removed from human activity" but because it's home to huge natural gas supplies, too. With winter approaching faster than I'd like, concerns about the doubling of heating one's home start entering the equation. Those of us living in northern states don't want drilling just for the oil but for the natural gas, which will stabilize the cost of heating our homes.
The situation is too dire to do nothing, which is the plan being pushed by Pelosi's Democrats. I wouldn't care about them if they were the minority party. Now that Democrats control the House's and Senate's agenda, though, I care alot about their agenda.
Their environutter-friendly agenda will bring our economy to its knees just like it did under Jimmy Carter.
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Aug-08 02:13 PM
While they're lifting bans, they ought to lift the ban on nuclear fuel recycling and cut the amount of nuclear waste by 99%.
Comment 2 by Chuck at 10-Aug-08 04:40 PM
There's another interesting angle here. I've felt all along that McCain could put California in play. This may help make that possible and cause some headaches for home-stater Pelosi and the Dem controlled congress along the way.
Unmasking Tinklenberg's Real Energy Agenda?
I've already fisked Elwyn Tinklenberg's Your Turn editorial so I won't rehash what I said there. Instead, I'll contrast his editorial with his "energy independence & climate change" issues page .
In his editorial, one of the first solutions that Mr. Tinklenberg makes is to drill more:
Drill domestically for more oil.Of course, that's followed in the next sentence with this:
No matter how much more drilling we do, the United States still has only 3 percent of the world's total supply of oil, and consumes 25 percent of the world's daily supply.If I read this right, Mr. Tinklenberg says we should drill for more oil even though it won't really help. That's at odds with his issues page on energy independence & climate change. Here's what he says there:
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.Doesn't that information explain why Mr. Tinklenberg thinks that drilling is futile? Doesn't that information expose Mr. Tinklenberg's real energy agenda?
This next bit of information confirms his anti-drilling position. He promises to work towards this:
Tax incentives to reward energy conservation and the use of alternative fuels in transportation, heating, lighting, and manufacturing, including implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.There's no such thing as a "revenue-neutral carbon tax." That's a job-killing tax increase that seeks to eliminate carbon-emitting sources of energy.
Here's another gem from Mr. Tinklenberg's solutions:
Sensible, progressive increases in CAFE fleet standards for fuel usage of automobiles and trucks.This White House fact sheet , issued when President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law, says that CAFE standards will go up by 40 percent. I can't imagine why that isn't a sufficient increase.
The post on Mr. Tinklenberg's blog about his editorial says this:
Tinklenberg supports a comprehensive plan to increase domestic oil supplies, develop alternative and renewable energy resources, and decrease demand through greater efficiency.Mr. Tinklenberg's credibility is strained by saying this. You can't be pro-drilling while simultaneously proposing a carbons tax. It's interesting that Mr. Tinklenberg would write such an editorial while keeping his environmentalist global warming issues page intact. Did he think that I wouldn't notice?
I wonder what Mr. Tinklenberg's reaction to this news would be:
"Negotiations with Shell to sign a deal to process oil shale in Jordan are nearing an end," said Maher Hjazin, head of the state-run Natural Resources Authority. "If our plans succeed, it would be one of the country's largest projects to help the Jordan become energy self-sufficient, with a possibility to export oil in the future."Question to Ms. Pelosi/Mr. Tinklenberg: Shouldn't this information make lifting the moratoria preventing the harvest of shale oil our highest priority?
If the goal is to make us energy independent who doesn't rely on a drop of oil from the Middle East, the Persian Gulf or Venezuela, wouldn't harvesting the shale oil of the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming go a long ways towards accomplishing that goal? If our goal is to reduce the cost of gas at the pump, wouldn't this help drop prices significantly?
The only way this doesn't shoot to the top of the priority list is if reducing prices isn't the primary goal. This information is meaningless if the goal is to "save the planet." (That isn't just Ms. Pelosi's goal. What do you think Mr. Tinklenberg meant when he said that "America must reduce its dependence on the coal and petroleum products that contribute to global warming"?)
If you connect the proverbial dots, it isn't difficult to see that Mr. Tinklenberg's agenda isn't significantly different than Speaker Pelosi's agenda of saving the planet.
I strongly suspect that that's Mr. Tinklenberg's true energy agenda.
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:54 PM
No comments.
