July 11-13, 2008
Jul 11 02:45 Pelosi Plays the Fool Jul 11 12:34 We Can't Drill Our Way Out Of This Crisis? Jul 11 14:24 Michele's Great New Website Jul 11 14:45 Sign The Petition Jul 12 13:31 Decision Time Jul 13 01:44 Two For The Price Of One Jul 13 11:52 Channeling Quin Hilyer Jul 13 12:50 Thank God For The Union Leader Jul 13 15:36 Our Next VP Is....?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Pelosi Plays the Fool
I've repeatedly said that Harry Reid is the most delusional leader that the House or Senate have ever seen. After reading this article in the Hill Magazine , I'm forced to rethink that. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi may have eclipsed Sen. Reid. Here's what I'm basing that opinion on:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate.Reid's signalling that he's open to increasing exploration, though I suspect that that's because he knows that Pelosi will stop the bill in the House.
"This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration" Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. "It's a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline."
Pelosi's stand may put her at odds with a growing number of members of the Democratic Caucus who have been moving toward possible compromises with Republicans on ways to expand domestic energy production.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Wednesday told reporters that expanded offshore drilling is not off the table, and that Democrats will take a look at whether states should be able to choose to drill off their coasts. "I'm not knee-jerk-opposed to anything," Reid said.
When Ms. Pelosi says that drilling is a hoax, how does she explain the cuban Economic Zone?
As the article points out, Ms. Pelosi is giving vulnerable Democrats reason to worry. They're finding out that doing nothing isn't playing well with their constituents. Vulnerable Democrats are thinking that this issue will sink them if they're seen as doing little or nothing to bring prices down.
Ms. Pelsoi apparently thinks that holding symbolic votes on non-energy energy plans is enough to placate the public. She's wrong about that. The only thing that'll satisfy consumers is if production is increased. Consumers know that that's the only thing that'll bring prices down quickly.
I'd further point out that it isn't this administration that's had trouble keeping prices down. Look at this chart of retail gas prices:
According to this graphic, gas cost between $2.30-2.40 a gallon when Pelosi took over. It also shows that it's jumped to $4.10 a gallon. Here's another piece of information that's worth noting:
WASHINGTON - The average U.S. retail price of unleaded regular gasoline fell sharply last week, dropping more than 12 cents to $2.60 a gallon, the Energy Information Administration (search) said Monday.What this tells us is that gas prices experienced some fluctuations related to Katrina and Rita but that they were relatively stable throughout 2005. Compare that with prices shooting up from $2.90-something a gallon in March, 2008 to $4.10 a gallon 4 months later.
The national pump price has tumbled some 32 cents in the past three weeks, but still remains 57 cents a gallon higher than one year ago, according to the EIA's weekly survey of U.S. service stations.
The drop reflects falling crude oil prices and a decline in gasoline demand as American motorists balked at paying record high prices in September after two hurricanes disrupted supplies.
U.S. crude oil futures ended at $60.32 a barrel Monday, down more than $10 from a peak in late August.
However, diesel fuel prices paid at retail stations rose by nearly a penny to an average $3.16 per gallon, according to the weekly EIA survey. The price remains 95 cents a gallon higher than one year ago.
Energy industry analysts are closely watching oil data to assess if the downturn in use is temporary or represents "demand destruction," in which high prices trigger longer-lasting changes in oil use by consumers and businesses. The American Petroleum Institute (search) said last week that sharply higher prices in September cut U.S. gasoline demand by nearly 4 percent.
I find it just a bit too coincidental that that spike was during the Democrats' watch.
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008 2:46 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 11-Jul-08 07:54 AM
One thing you forgot to point out is that the charts reflect during the summer a jump of $1.10. What happened after the summer of 2007 you didn't have the dramatic drop that should've taken place.
The supply problem had kicked in as early as the fall of 2007 and the Democrats weren't caring then. If they do something then the price might not be as high as today.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
We Can't Drill Our Way Out Of This Crisis?
Earlier this morning, I posted something titled " Pelosi Plays the Fool ." Now I'm calling Ms. Pelosi on why shey's changed her mind on drilling. Ms. Pelosi's statements at her weekly press conference are now contradicted by Steny Hoyer's quote in this Reuters article . Here's what Ms. Pelosi said during her press conference:
" This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax , it's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration" Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. " It's a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline ."Here's what Rep. Hoyer said today:
"Let's be clear: Democrats support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources."Rep. Hoyer is more full of it than a Christmas goose.
- If Democrats "support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources", why wasn't it in the non-energy Energy Bill passed earlier?
- If Democrats "support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources", then why was the mantra "We can't drill our way out of this crisis" created?
- If Democrats "support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources", then why did Speaker Pelosi call additional drilling a hoax?
He outlined legislation, which could reach the House floor as early as next week, that he said would speed development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, where drilling activity has been slow .If the name National Petroleum Reserve doesn't ring a bell, that's perhaps because it's often associated with the Brooks Range:
Democratic leaders also hammered away at the U.S. oil industry, saying it is doing little with the leases it already holds to drill on 68 million acres in the lower 48 states. Under the Democratic bill, such lease holders would have to "use it or lose it," Hoyer said.
You'll notice that the Brooks range is also in Alaska's tundra region but that it's 150-250 miles west of ANWR and possibly 50-100 miles south of the huge known reserves found in ANWR's Coastal Plain.
- If Democrats truly are in favor of increasing oil exploration and production, why aren't they opening ANWR, where there's huge known reserves of oil and natural gas?
- If Democrats truly are in favor of increasing oil exploration and production, why aren't they opening the OCS?
- If Democrats truly are in favor of increasing oil exploration and production, why aren't they opening the spigot enough to make a difference?
"People are hurting because the Bush-Cheney administration for eight years has stood with big oil and big energy instead of the American people," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat.Rep. Clyburn's comment is insulting. The Bush administration "has stood with big oil" because there aren't many wildcatters with the financial wherewithal to drill on the OCS, in ANWR or on the Brooks Range. This is just a pathetic attempt to sound like they're on the side of 'the little guy'.
NEWSFLASH: 'The little guy' won't see relief if Big Oil isn't permitted to do its job. 'Big Oil' has the capital to pour into a major project like this. Certainly, wildcatters can't get the capital needed for a project in ANWR.
Not letting Big Oil do what it does best is how we got into this mess. Environmental do-gooders prevented 'Big Oil' from doing what they do best: supply oil to American consumers. We know this from this article :
"So the debate started way back in 1977, I think that was the first time I came to Congress and testified on that issue," Herrera recalled.It's obvious that Democrats have sided with the environmentalists for 30+ years. Based on the Democrats time-tested allegiance to the environmentalists, isn't it accurate to say that Democrats have stood with the environmentalists instead of the American people"?
At that time, Stan Senner was a young environmentalist from Fairbanks, Alaska. He flew to Washington to lobby for protection of the coastal plain, a wilderness teeming with wildlife in northeastern Alaska. "We knew right from the outset that it was going to be a big fight," Senner recalled.
What have Democrats done on increasing oil production in the last 10 years? More precisely, have Democrats done anything to increase oil production in the last 10 years?
The bottom line to this abrupt reversal by the House Democratic leadership is proof that this issue is a ticking electoral time bomb that doesn't benefit Democrats and that Democrats can only apply bandaids on this crisis because their environmentalist allies won't permit them to truly open the spigot to energy independence.
Pelosi and Hoyer know that they'll get clobbered if they're seen as doing nothing. They also know that they can't go farther than this gimmick because the environmentalists will be hopping mad if they do.
The Lady Logician is right in saying that we can get out of this mess. It's just that we can't with Pelosi and Hoyer bowing at the environmentalists' altar.
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008 1:48 PM
No comments.
Michele's Great New Website
I was just over to Rep. Michele Bachmann's website to check if she's posted any new press releases. What I found instead is a great looking interactive website.
What's most impressive is that Michele obviously gets it that a user-friendly website is a great service to constituents. It's obvious, too, that Michele believes in a 'the more information, the better' approach.
NOTE TO GOP LEGISLATORS: More is better, especially with websites. The more we know about what you're working on, the better we can inform our co-workers, friends and family.
There's a reason why that's important, especially in this environment. The GOP name isn't seen in high regard because of what's happened in the past. Once you get past the label, though, people like GOP ideas.
People want legislators, both at the state and federal levels, to be solution-oriented. The focus of this blog is to contrast the GOP's solutions vs. the DFL's non-solutions solutions. I've highlighted the flimsiness of the No Solutions Brigade's non-solution solutions.
If more GOP legislators circulated the amounts of important information that Michele puts into circulation, we'd have a base that would be energized to the maximum. We'd have the information to make us informed advocates, not just advocates.
I've said this many times in conversations with the great GOP activists and with our legislators:
Send me out onto the battlefield anytime. Just send me out with more ammunition than I need .That's precisely what Michele's website & blog give me.
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008 2:24 PM
No comments.
Sign The Petition
Earlier this week, I posted about the House Democrats' attempted censorship of its members. This effort is spearheaded by Rep. Michael Capuano, (D-MA). This morning, I got an email from Rep. Mike Conaway, (R-TX) asking me to sign a petition to halt the Democrats' attempt to halt the free flow of information between my representative and myself. I've already signed the petition. I'm urging my readers to do the same.
Follow this link to sign Rep. Conaway's petition.
PS- After you've signed the petition, I strongly encourage you to bookmark Rep. Conaway's blog, too.
Let's remember that then Speaker-Elect Pelosi said that the 110th Congress would be the most open and ethical congress in history. We knew that was a line of BS then. All that's changed is that we now have proof that they're anything but transparent or ethical.
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008 2:46 PM
No comments.
Decision Time
I've been critical of the GOP ever since the midterm election debacle. I've been especially critical of the RNC because they've undercut true conservatives while promoting squishy moderates. It seems like the RNC has specialized promiting CW Republicans instead of lining up behind solutions-oriented, outside-the-box-thinking conservatives.
This morning, I read Fred Barnes' depressing column titled "The Colorado Model". I wasn't depressed because he wrote about the Democrats' plan to win Colorado on all levels. It was depressing to hear Barnes talking like there wasn't anything we could do to stop the anti-GOP trend.
I won't tolerate that type of defeatism. That's why I'd fire every Beltway-based GOP strategist. That's why I'm ignoring every defeatist, process-oriented Beltway GOP pundit from this day forward. If these pundits and strategists want to whine about things instead of figuring out solutions to the biggest problems of the day, especially high gas prices, then they're part of the problem. PERIOD.
That's why I've been impressed with the House Republicans. I've participated in 2 blogger conference calls on energy recently. Organized by my representative Michele Bachmann, they've focused on increasing oil production. That's a solution that the public understands and agrees with.
What's more is that they're dispelling the myth that "We can't drill our way out of this crisis." They're also dispelling the myths that drilling won't drop prices and that it'll take forever to get the oil online.
Whether it's Michele Bachmann, John Peterson, Eric Cantor, Phil Gingrey or Roy Blunt, the House GOP is staying on this important battlefield and they're defeating the Democrats on the field of ideas. They're exposing the factual inaccuracies in the Democrats' statements.
The result is that Democrats are starting to cave on drilling. Yesterday, I posted about how House Democrats are now willing to drill in Alaska . When I first heard about this news, I figured that there had to be a poison pill codified into the bill or that there was another catch. I was right. I don't know that there's a poison pill in the bill but there is a catch. Democrats are willing to open upsome leases within the Brooks Range. That's at least 250 miles away from the Costal Plain area in ANWR, which is the home of a huge known oil and natural gass reserve.
Minority Leader Boehner will soon be leading a delegation of GOP freshmen to ANWR:
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will lead a delegation of Republicans to Denver and Alaska next week to promote the use of U.S. resources and new technology to relieve the country's energy crisis, according to sources familiar with the trip.In other words, they're looking for energy solutions that aren't based on the environmentalists' wish list. They aren't playing Washington's games. Instead, they listened to the people and found tht high gas prices were the most important issue on their minds, then formulated a plan for solving those high prices.
Freshmen Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Gus Bilirakis (Fla.), Mary Fallin (Okla.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Bob Latta (Ohio), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Steve Scalise (La.) and Adrian Smith (Neb.) will leave with Boehner on July 18 for Golden, Colo., where they will tour the National Renewable Energy Lab.
The group will then fly to Alaska, stopping at Prudhoe Bay and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and finally visiting the town of Kaktovik before returning to Washington on July 21.
What we found out was that we finally had an issue that put Democrats on the defensive. In fact, because the House GOP fought back, we found out that the Democrats' position was completely indefensible.
The day after the midterm election defeat, I wrote a post titled Moving Forward, Part I , in which I said this:
We need to pick some fights on the most important issues of the day.Frankly, the GOP hasn't picked many fights until recently. Now the House is stepping forward and essentially saying "No More!!!" Now that they're standing steadfast, their Senate colleagues are starting the pushback, too. This morning, Scott Johnson posted this John Cornyn op-ed :
After reading John Hinderaker's post on Friday about lack of Democratic leadership on energy, I can report that the view looks about the same from my Senate office. Nancy Pelosi promised an effective new energy plan before the 2006 election; that's about 809 days ago and we're still waiting. They're now postponing votes because some Democrats fear reality has finally set in and Congress may actually approve more domestic exploration for new energy.Pay particularly close attention to this sentence:
We've put ourselves in an irrational box. We've put 85 percent of our prime energy exploration lands off-limits. The U.S. is the only country in the world that refuses to develop its own natural resources. With a growing worldwide demand for energy, we're willing to enrich foreign governments, some of which wish us harm, instead of helping ourselves.
The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I'm for pursuing every source of energy out there, solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all. But we've built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure, or we're headed towards economic catastrophe.
As John notes, a number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they want to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot. You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development, in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale, or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall's elections than most pundits now assume.
I'm staging an "Energy Independence Days" discussion this week on my Web site. I will be joined by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and others who see clearly the need to produce more domestic energy and reduce our reliance on foreign sources. You know I am a long time and enthusiastic Power Line fan, and it's an honor to communicate with your readers. I hope many of you will join me at JohnCornyn.com this coming week, and share your thoughts on our energy problem.
Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development, in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale, or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall's elections than most pundits now assume.I totally agree with Sen. Cornyn on that. People are dying for solutions, especially on gas prices. I'll bet the ranch that Sen. Cornyn's "Energy Independence Days" discussion will drive a ton of traffic to his website. I'll also bet the ranch that that discussion will get activists pumped and ready to run through walls for the GOP.
I'm not a defeatist nor will I ever consider that option. The time is upon us that each of us decides on whether we'll participate in defeatism or if we'll participate in part of the solution. Knowing that true Reaganite conservatism is solutions-based, I think that it's entirely possible to change the dynamics of this election season and to shock the world.
I've always believed that conservatism was a the most powerful political force in the universe. I haven't strayed from that belief. In fact, I refuse to stray from that belief. I'm just looking for more people to join the army of activists that are already working hard.
So consider this my invitation to anyone out there who's solutions-driven and who wants to be part of the solution. That's the decision facing you.
Posted Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
Comment 1 by RINOHunter at 12-Jul-08 02:06 PM
Thankfully, traditionalist Constitutionalists are on the march in the GOP. They are putting the run on the RINO neo-cons:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/416150.html
Shades of things to come in MN!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Jul-08 02:39 PM
I'm not all that focused on RINOs in even-numbered years because that's when we're in 'Winning-Election-Mode'. I'm focused on RINOs in odd-numbered years because that's when I'm in ideological mode.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-08 10:50 AM
Two Putt Tommie's comment was deleted, as will all of his comments from this moment forward.
I warned him against making allegations if he didn't offer verifiable proof backing up those allegations. He accused John Boehner & Roy Blunt of being "the guys thay are behind the corruption in W.D.C."
Only dirtbags make such outlandish statements. Such hit & run comments will be deleted the minute I see them.
Two For The Price Of One
The WSJ is reporting that Chuck Hagel is likely joining Sen. Obama on his trip to Iraq . For those of us who didn't see anything worthing in Sen. Hagel and who are thankful that he's retiring, this presents a two-for-one opportunity.
A vocal critic of both the Iraq War and the Bush administration, Hagel mulled a run for the White House last year, but opted out of the race. He announced he was retiring from the U.S. Senate in Sept. 2007.If Hagel joins Obama to Iraq, it'll mean that two arrogant senators will have to admit that McCain supported the right strategy, not just one. When they visit with Petraeus, Odierno and Crocker, they'll have to admit that things are much different than what they've been whining about the past 2 years. They'll have to admit that progress is being made on the political front and the military front. They'll have to admit that reconciliation is happening. They'll even have to admit that the Iraqi military is stepping up and that they're getting more proficient.
In a Tuesday interview with MSNBC, senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod also offered kind words for the Nebraska senator. "Sen. Hagel, I think, has been very courageous in speaking out on this issue of Iraq and the misguided policies that we've had from the beginning." Axelrod declined to comment when asked then if Hagel would join Obama on the Iraq visit.
Republicans have sought to make an issue of Obama's scarcity of visits to Iraq a campaign issue-the Illinois senator has not visited Iraq since Jan. 2006. The Republican National Committee's Web site features a clock counting down the days-915 current-since his last visit. Sen. McCain, in contrast, has made eight trips since the war began in 2003.It's always interesting to see how the Agenda Media characterize things. Republicans haven't sought to make Obama's scarcity of visits the issue. Rather, they've tried highlighting the fact that he has the same opinion, the same policy, now as he had 2 years ago. Sen. Obama and Sen. Hagel would be wise to learn what John Meynard Keynes said about change :
When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"It's obvious that neither senator wants to admit that they were wrong, that neither man wants to admit that John McCain was right all along.
Hagel's potential bipartisan alliance with Obama would be an interesting contrast to the relationship shared by McCain and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.The comparison between Lieberman and Hagel wouldn't flatter Hagel. Hagel's a lightweight who let his BDS affliction color his judgment. I haven't seen proof that he's ever liked President Bush. I've seen proof that he hasn't liked President Bush. I've also seen proof that Sen. Hagel thinks alot more highly of himself than his meagher Senate record affords him.
The thought of seeing Sens. Hagel and Obama admitting that McCain was right and that they're wrong will be delightful. They won't admit that they're wrong, of course. They'll just admit that they're pleased with the briefings that they were given. Thinking people will know that that's code for "I was wrong." That's all that matters.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:53 AM
No comments.
Channeling Quin Hilyer
As I started reading this article by Quin Hilyer , I realized that he's on the same page as most of the activists I've talked with. Here's the first thing that caught my attention:
What I found, as an outside observer, was a well-organized and active group of people of good will, good heart, and good energy. The experience led me to believe that the grass roots are in better shape than are the party offices and congressional caucuses in Washington. If I could give a speech to those congressional caucuses to report what I saw at the grass roots, I think my speech would be more upbeat, and I also think the listeners would be more in need of hearing any lessons I could pass on to them than were the listeners in Mobile, who already seem to be full of the wisdom that those on Capitol Hill seem to have lost.That sounds alot like what I said in this post :
This morning, I read Fred Barnes' depressing column titled "The Colorado Model". I wasn't depressed because he wrote about the Democrats' plan to win Colorado on all levels. It was depressing to hear Barnes talking like there wasn't anything we could do to stop the anti-GOP trend.It's time that our politicians and Beltway conservatives need a doublshot of confidence. I'm not under the illusion that we'll retake the House and Senate while keeping the White House. I'll even go so far as to admit that candidates that run CW campaigns will likely lose.
I won't tolerate that type of defeatism. That's why I'd fire every Beltway-based GOP strategist. That's why I'm ignoring every defeatist, process-oriented Beltway GOP pundit from this day forward . If these pundits and strategists want to whine about things instead of figuring out solutions to the biggest problems of the day, especially high gas prices, then they're part of the problem. PERIOD.
That isn't admitting that all is lost. It just means that we need to tout our common sense solutions. It means that we have to challenge the Democrats' misinformation.
Most importantly, keep the pressure on them.
These aren't mental giants we're dealing with. Pressure Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and it's almost guaranteed that they'll say something stupid. That's something that we can exploit. Politicians, pundits and strategists say that there's an anti-Republican mood in the country. That's an artificial mood. It's based on not fighting an intelligent fight against these dimwits.
If candidates don't press solutions to important issues, of course Democrats will win. When has that not been so? The question then becomes why don't we challenge Democrats? Their supposed strength is fiction. It's something that can be exposed quickly.
For instance, Democrats have started saying that they're open to expanding drilling in Alaska. They're also saying that "We can't drill our way out of this crisis." Our first logical question is simple:
If we can't drill our way out of this crisis, why open drilling in Alaska?The next logical question is equally simple:
If you're willing to open up parts of Alaska to drilling, shouldn't we open up the OCS and ANWR, too? If not, why not?In other words, shouldn't we stop with quarter- and half-measures? Shouldn't we do things right right from the start? I spoke with someone on Capitol Hill about the Democrats' new proposal. Here's what the person told me (I'm paraphrasing):
They're painting themselves into a corner by doing this. They've now abandoned their primary argument but they haven't embraced the GOP position.I told this person that I agreed with that appraisal right before I volunteered to keep handing them more paint and paintbrushes so they can finish the job. Let's be serious about this. Democrats are east of the proverbial rock and west of the proverbial hard place on this.
Question for Beltway strategists and pundits: We're afraid of these buffoons why???
We shouldn't be cowering in a corner. We should be highlighting the intellectual incoherence of the Democrats' so-called solutions. We should highlight that and explain that their incoherence is either due to their unwillingness to cut ties to the environmental extremists or they're unable to figure out a real solution to that problem.
If we frame it that way, Democrats look awful either way. Isn't that how you win elections?
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:54 AM
No comments.
Thank God For The Union Leader
My first reaction to reading this editorial in the NH Union Leader was "Thank God for the Union Leader." Here's the opening of their editorial:
MAYBE THE quickest way to lower oil and gas prices would be this: Immediately enroll every Democratic member of Congress in an entry-level economics class.That's the snarkiest way of exposing the foolishness (I could've said stupidity but I'm too gracious for that.) of the Democrats' energy position. Last Friday, I read that Democrats had reversed themselves on drilling in Alaska. After checking this Reuters article , I realized that they were trying to play a fast one. Their plan was to open up more of the National Petroleum Reserve, located in the Brooks Range.
The lack of even a basic grasp of economic concepts has led Democrats to oppose sensible policies that would begin to lower oil and gas prices. Instead, they push hair-brained ideas that make no sense.
The reason behind this stunt is to allow Democrats to say that they aren't really opposed to drilling. My question for them is simple:
If you aren't opposed to drilling, why not tap into the huge known reserves of ANWR and the OCS?I suspect that the only supply and demand principles that Democrats understand is that they won't get their supply of campaign contributions if they don't do as the environmentalist lobby demands.
Let's be clear about something. The Union Leader's opening is spot on. Democrats are campaigning on telling the American people that supply and demand aren't what's governing the price of oil. Fortunately, the American people know that that's malarkey.
This nugget from the Union Leader editorial should be a daily reminder to GOP candidates and incumbents:
Any step Congress takes to produce a large increase in future supply, opening the outer continental shelf to drilling, for example, will reduce current prices. If there will be a lot more oil 10 years from now, a barrel of oil today loses some of its investment value, and its price falls.If there's an announcement that we aren't going to be held hostage to others' actions, that we're taking matters into our own hands, that's the minute prices will start dropping. If Democrats want to keep insisting that supply and demand don't matter, we'll simply exploit that. We'll simply make the case to the American people that it does matter. If we do that consistently, then I must agree with Sen. John Cornyn . Here's what he said about pushing this issue:
As Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein wrote in The Wall Street Journal on July 1, "Increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories."
Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development, in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale, or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall's elections than most pundits now assume.If you ask me, that's a high price to pay for ignoring the realities of supply and demand. We should do everything we can to assist the Democrats pay that price.
Here's another part of the editorial that I agreed with:
The solution offered by Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats: Impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. But of course, that will do nothing to increase the supply of oil or reduce demand.I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: If you impose a tax increase on oil companies, doesn't that make the price at the pump more expensive? Put differently, if you increase a company's operating expenses, doesn't that additional expense almost automatically make its way to the price of the product?
That isn't a solution. That's a gimmick that the Obamessiah hope works. He can't truly be for a drilling solution after opposing that solution earlier. That'd make him look unprincipled, something that he's likely loathe to do. Besides, he'd have a major uprising if he switched position on this issue. He can't afford to anger the environmentalists.
That's what happens, though, when you refuse to apply simple economic principles to solve economic woes.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 13-Jul-08 03:24 PM
John S. the Senator from New Hampshire that is expected to lose to Shaheen. I hope this can help turn his race around cutting the losses in the Senate down.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-08 03:45 PM
I'm not counting Sununu out by any stretch of the imagination. He's got a reputation as a strong closer. Couple that with this issue & I think that's a difficult but winnable race.
I've heard some pundits say that Democrats might win enough seats in the Senate to have a filibuster-proof majority. That's utter nonsense.
Walter, make sure you stop past John Cornyn's website this week as he, Newt & Sarah Palin talk energy policy.
Our Next VP Is....?
Everyone's been getting into who will be the next Veep. I'm no different, though I haven't said much on this blog. To me, there's three viable choices who I see as frontrunners: Rob Portman, Mitt and John Kasich. I think that Mark Sanford would be a solid choice but I don't see him as a frontrunner.
I don't see Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal in that mix...yet.
Let's look at my frontrunners, starting with Mitt .
Mitt has quite a few highlights on his resume. Most impressive is his rescuing the Salt Lake Olympics. To accomplish that is nothing short of miraculous. Nobody thought it possible but it happened.
Another plus is his economic credentials. Building a company from the ground up is something that people have to pay attention to and respect.
The other major plus working in Mitt's favor is that he's a good campaigner.
That said, he brings some negatives to the table. Fairly or unfairly, he's perceived as a less than warm person. There's a perception that he's an elitist because of his wealth. I've never bought into that but that's a perception that he'd have to fight.
The biggest negative, though, is his health care plan. It's hurting people in Massachusetts. It's costing alot of money. It isn't a popular thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Next, let's look at Rob Portman .He's credited with doing a solid job as OMB Director. Having strong economic credentials in this election is a definite plus for McCain's running mate. Portman is also a true free trader, which is a positive thing because people know he isn't an isolationist. Portman's other policy strength is that he's a credentialed reformer.
Finally, he's an energetic campaigner.
On the downside, Rep. Portman is a relative unknown on the national scene.
Which brings us to John Kasich . In the interest of full disclosure, I'll unabashedly admit that I prefered Kasich over Bush and McCain in 2000. The main reason why is because he's a fiscal hawk. He was proposing balanced budgets during Bush 41's term in office. At that time, people thought we'd never see another balanced budget. That changed the minute Kasich became the House Budget Committee Chair in 1995. It isn't coincidence that 2 short years later, we were running surpluses.
Another appealing thing about Kasich is that he's got a strong record of working across the aisle with sensible liberals. His offering of balanced budgets with Tim Penny is the perfect example of his principled bipartisanship.
Yet another thing working in John Kasich's favor is that he's a plain-spoken idealist . His story of being a mail-carrier's son growing up in Youngstown, OH is compelling. Think of Kasich as the GOP's answer to Tim Russert. Russert and Kasich both made their mark in Washington, DC but they never forgot where they were from. They both knew the perils blue collar workers faced because they'd been there. That's something that will play well in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The other plus that Kasich has going for him is that he's just plain likeable. That quality should never be underestimated. Hillary lost alot of ground because she was seen as a witch whereas Obama was seen as friendly. Of course, Obama's image as friendly was busted when the Wright videos came out.
Finally, John Kasich is a great debater. Many was the time that I watched him defend the most appealing of conservative ideals on Crossfire and win. Don't think that that wouldn't be helpful on the campaign trail and in the VP debate.
Lately, he's been on Hannity & Colmes alot arguing policies and politics on their panels. It's apparent that his debating skills haven't diminished a bit since his Crossfire days. His arguments always go to the heart of the matter. Rarely does he argue about peripheral things.
Imagine how compelling that trait is when trying to pin Obama or his running mate down on tax policy or energy policy. This isn't tiny. It's huge. If there's anything I've learned about liberals, it's that they try changing the subject the minute they realize that they've been painted into a corner. Kasich's been debating skill is consistently returning the debate to the central point of the question.
His name on the ticket means that Democrats can't win Ohio. It also gives us a great opportunity to take Pennsylvania out of the blue column and into the red column.
To summarize, Kasich is an skillful debater, a policy wonk and he's likeable from an important red state.
What's not to love?
UPDATE: Welcome AmSpecBlog readers. Take the time to see my activist-centered writings.
Like I told Quin, I'm tired of Washington GOP pundits and 'strategists' repeating the mantra that this is a tough year for Republicans. That's total nonsense. While it's true that candidates who run a traditional CW-type campaign will get whacked hard, it's equally true that candidates that campaign confidently on issues like drilling to bring down high gas prices and keeping taxes low will do very well.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment 1 by Ted at 13-Jul-08 06:39 PM
With all due respect, all of the potential Veeps you name have negatives which are at least equal to or in excess of their positives to McCain, SAVE ONE NAME, and that is Sarah Palin. Her positives are wildly off the chart with no appreciable negatives.
So, in being realistic, MCCAIN IS LIKELY GONNA CHOOSE SARAH PALIN (and not recognizing her as the frontrunner at this stage is simply NOT realistic).
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-08 08:59 PM
Ted, Ms. Palin is talented but she's less than 2 years into her first term of elected office. Putting her on the ticket eliminates the experience argument that McCain currently maintains.
As for your arguing that "all of the potential Veeps you name have negatives which are at least equal to or in excess of their positives", it's unacceptable to say that without listing any of those negatives.
If you're gonna make such allegations, back them up with more than just allegations.
Similarly, how do you think that Ms. Palin is the only realistic choice? I've cited at least 1 major reason why she isn't realistic at this point.
Comment 3 by Sabrina Fair at 14-Jul-08 07:19 AM
I am so glad to see someone seriously throwing John Kasich's name into consideration.
Like you, he was my first pick in 2000.
One reason I think McCain/Kasich would make such a dynamic team is that Kasich seems almost like a junior McCain in his spirit and his ideals.
I think he has been a wonderful spokesman for McCain's principles and Republican principles and especially effective recently in the shows you cited.
Finally, I think he is around 57 or 58 with 9 terms in the House of Reps. under his belt plus real world experience in consulting and broadcasting since 2000.
He has the experience to take over the Presidency at the drop of a hat if, God forbid, the need ever arose, and is interesting enough to be able to carry on the Republican banner in 2012 or 2016 if he wished to.
McCain/Kasich 2008!
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-08 08:32 AM
Sabrina, The thing I didn't mention is that he's able to disagree without looking or sounding disagreeable.
Stop back to my humble blog frequently. I love thinking outside the Belway mindset.
