July 15, 2008
Jul 15 02:06 ***IBD Urges Pelosi's Resignation*** Jul 15 02:46 Harry Reid As Mr. No Jul 15 03:34 Favre-Thompson Feud Exposed Jul 15 09:09 Obama's National Security Priorities Jul 15 11:31 Where's El Tinklenberg? Jul 15 16:40 House, Senate D's Splitting With Their Leaders? Jul 15 18:04 I Didn't Know I Was THAT Influential
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
***IBD Urges Pelosi's Resignation***
This IBD editorial takes Nancy Pelosi to the proverbial woodshed over her panicked mishandling of the Energy Crisis. This is a perfect illustration of why I call the 110th Congress the No Solutions Congress. It's also a perfect illustration of why I call this crisis the "Crisis of Choice." Here's how IBD chastizes Ms. Pelosi:
Leadership: With oil hitting $147, Nancy Pelosi finally admits energy is a problem. But instead of drilling for it, she's cooked up a new drain-the-reserves scheme. It's pure politics at a time of crisis. She ought to resign.There's no way a man of integrity could dispute a word of that analysis. As I said here, Democrats love talking about how they're for the little guy and the blue collar workers but then refuse to consider solutions that would help workers:
Any leader with an energy record as derelict as Speaker Pelosi's ought to step down. Where she once was just incompetent and irresponsible, she has now, with her latest scheme to fix oil prices, become dangerous.
Despite polls showing Americans in favor of drilling more oil from America's huge untapped supplies, Pelosi won't allow it. She just wants to empty our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short-term fix to get through Election Day.
It's an irresponsible suggestion, signaling not only an ignorance of how the economy works but also a willingness to place the nation at risk in the case of emergency.
If they're for working people, why do they do everything in their power to limit working people's prosperity with high gas prices? If they're for working people, why do they let high gas and diesel prices drive up the cost of everything from farm products to groceries to heating schools?Simply put, Ms. Pelosi has proven that she won't do a thing to help relieve the pressure that American families all across this nation are experiencing. That isn't just proof that she isn't a leader. It's also proof of her indifference towards working class people. Their behavior isn't just reckless. It's immmoral and unforgiveable.
If they really cared about working people, they'd stop the nonsense and let our economy prosper. It speaks volumes that Ms. Pelosi and her allies are perfectly content to let families suffer with high inflation that's a product of their choices.
Real people are hurting out here and the supposed best Ms. Pelosi can do is say "There's nothing we can do about it." That isn't what a leader does. Real leaders put a coherent plan together, then implement that plan. By comparison, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Emanuel have figuratively folded their arms and announced that they're going to stand on the sidelines.
How can a supposedly thoughtful person see this dramatic crisis, then say that they don't have a solution that will stabilize the economy and relieve the stress that American families are feeling?
One, she's proposing a misappropriation of the reserves. The U.S. oil stockpile is a 58-day cushion for emergencies that today are all possible. If Israel attacks Iran, for example, and prices double again. Or if Hugo Chavez cuts off his supplies, as he threatened to do as recently as Sunday. The reserve is there to cushion the blow of a market disruption; it's not an open-market mechanism to manipulate prices for political ends.I hope that America is watching. This woman is panicking because she's been exposed as a politician without a solution to one of the biggest economic crises we've faced since the Carter administration. Her recommending releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is nothing more than her desperate plea to take this issue off the table until after the election.
Two, Pelosi has finally admitted that supply matters , something that contrasts with her entire legislative record. We count 14 energy actions to suppress supply on her Web site just since 2005. She has blocked efforts to open Alaska to drilling, denounced fossil fuels, blamed oil companies for high gasoline prices, voted for biotech boondoggles and condemned speculators.
Wisely, President Bush told her she'd have to deal with it, that he wasn't letting her off the hook. In fact, he's essentially told Democrats that this campaign would be about them being accountable for their decision to do nothing to solve this problem. He's confronted them, essentially telling them that they'll have to explain to an angry electorate why expanding oil exploration won't help. I'd rather wave a matador's cape in front of a bull than explain my way out of the mess they've created. Here's something else that she needs to explain:
We count 14 energy actions to suppress supply on her Web site just since 2005.I suspect that she announced those proudly, never thinking a moment that they'd return to haunt her. Haunt her they will, though. When she suppressed energy production, she was playing to the environmental extremists. If I had to place a bet right now, I'd bet the proverbial ranch plus any money I could borrow that the environmentalists are as unpopular as Congress, which is saying something.
I've repeatedly said that Nancy Pelosi is the most incompetent Speaker in my lifetime, which takes alot since I remember Jim Wright and Tom Foley.
When her legacy is written, I wouldn't be surprised if it recorded that she should never have been Speaker. I suspect that history will be quite rough with her. This graph should be included in every history book:
It's proof of her incompetence.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jul-08 06:58 AM
Somebody just needs to point out that draining even a full one-half of the reserve is only enough gas for two weeks! What happens to the price of oil after that???
Harry Reid As Mr. No
Every time I hear Harry Reid prattle on about the Republicans' "Johnny One Note" plan for energy, I realize that he's utterly incompetent and beholden to the environmental extremists. That feeling came over me when I read this article in the Las Vegas Journal Review. Here's what caused me to wince:
Reid said a call by President Bush for Congress to repeal a law that prohibits new drilling was not realistic. Bush issued the challenge after announcing he was lifting a long-standing executive order that bans offshore energy exploration off the East and West coasts.Saying that it's a "good political gimmick" implies that this isn't a real solution, which, I suspect, is exactly what it's intended to do. It's the modern equivalent of Al Gore's risky scheme line when then Governor Bush proposed his tax cuts.
"The president is trying to make this a political gimmick, and we're trying to figure out a way to do something about these (gasoline) prices," Reid said. "And we are interested in increasing domestic production but we want to be realistic as to what expectations should be."
If Sen. Reid thinks that the American people will tolerate his and Nancy Pelosi's inaction in bringing this crisis to an end, then he'll be proven wrong this November.
I'll make this prediction right now: If Democrats don't do substantive to reduce gas prices, they'll (a) lose seats in the House and (b) not meet explectations in the Senate races.
For instance, Democrats have been counting John Sununu's seat as their gain this November. Now Jean Shaheen is siding with Harry Reid , which is political suicide. As I told a friend, Sununu's got a reputation as a strong closer. Giving him this type of issue coming down the home stretch is all he might need.
Strategically speaking, Democrats are betting that their head fakes will distract attention from the fact that they've done nothing to help working people. I'll be the proverbial ranch that Republicans will draw a big red circle around the Democrats' cowtowing to the environmentalists.
Personally, that seems like playing Russian Roulette. Even though the odds are in my favor, I sure wouldn't bet my life on it, which is precisely what the Democrats are doing.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:49 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jul-08 06:53 AM
So, what you are counting on is that the Democrats are stupid enough to continue their elitist obstructionism despite overwhelming contraindications, while Republicans are smart enough to take political advantage of it?
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 15-Jul-08 09:03 AM
We're all supposed to know who the IBD is? Sorry, not so. Why should I care that people I've never heard of have an opinion about anything?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-08 09:18 AM
IBD is Investors Business Daily. I've been referencing their articles for at least a couple years.
You shouldn't care because you know who they are. You should care because they've made a compelling argument.
Favre-Thompson Feud Exposed
This Pi-Press article exposes a feud between Brett Favre and Ted Thompson . Greta van Susteren's interview with No. 4 gave us some stunning quotes which will air Tuesday night. (The first half ran Monday night.) Here's one of the quotes that caught me by surprise:
Favre also expressed frustration with three incidents in the recent Packers past involving Thompson.I caution everyone that we're only hearing Favre's side of the story so we can't prove that this happened like Favre said. At the same time, why wouldn't a gunslinger like Favre want a dynamic wideout like Randy?
In one instance, Favre told Van Susteren that, "I worked my butt off two years ago to try to get them to sign Randy Moss," adding that he was willing to give up salary to land the talented former Vikings receiver. But Favre said Thompson denied publicly that Favre had lobbied to get Moss, which Favre said was not the case. Moss signed with the New England Patriots.
This is the quote that most caught me:
"And none of those had anything to do with me retiring once again, but, you know, it's hard for me to trust, you know, this guy when I...either I'm told one thing and everyone else is told another , or he's telling the public one thing and telling me another. And so, and that's part of the reason for the release," Favre said of his request to be released by the Packers to pursue opportunities with other teams. "Not only was I told that playing here was not an option, we're moving on; it's kind of in their company line, moving on. That's OK."Based on that quote, I can't picture Favre coming back to the Pack. I've had that opinion ever since Packer President Emeritus Bob Harlan intimated that Favre was best off retiring because he'd lost something off his fastball. Clearly, last year proved that Favre hadn't lost anything. Instead, it proved that he was still able to play at a very high level. (Personally, I consider him to be the third best QB in the league behind Brady and Peyton Manning.)
Frankly, I'd been willing to give Thompson the benefit of the doubt, that he was an honest guy, etc. Again, this is Favre's word vs. Ted Thompson's which isn't proof. That said, I think that Favre is credible. I think that Ted Thompson has some credibility issues.
One thing's for certain: I'll be tuning in the second half of Greta's interview with No. 4.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:34 AM
No comments.
Obama's National Security Priorities
I didn't listen to Sen. Obama's major national security speech but this article gives me something to comment on. According to the article, here's Sen. Obama's priorities:
If elected president, he said, he would also finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations; achieve "true energy security"; and rebuild the nation's alliances.While Sen. Obama takes teh view that Iraq isn't a central front in the war against the jihadists, the jihadists have said that it is. That sounds like the Dems' approach that we weren't at war with Radical Islam in the 1990s. Then as now, Democrats are ignoring the facts.
As for finishing the fight against al-Qa'ida, why not stay in Iraq and finish deplete their recruits there? If they're sending people to us, the hospitable thing to do is give them one 21 gun salute after another.
Sen. Obama's goal of securing "nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations" is a worthwhile goal but that won't happen by meeting with Ahmadinejad or by not keeping the threat of war hanging over his head.
As for "achieving true energy security", that's impossible if he isn't willing to drill more. Letting environmental extremists set energy policy seems totally backwards.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact, as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."Again, I'd point Sen. Obama to bin Laden and Zawahiri have said about Iraq. While I agree that it didn't start off that way, that changed with time. I'd suggest that the Annointed One start reading his briefing books rather than pretending that he's omniscient.
McCain fired back with this salvo:
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."As I pointed out in this post , Sen. Obama is all about having the photo op . Saying that his trip is a fact-finding trip is spin. Facts don't matter to him. It's a CYA trip so he can say he went.
The way he's setting policy is bassackwards, too. It's like starting with a verdict, then cherrypicking the information to support your perspective. The best policies happen when you gather the experts together, then go wherever the information takes you. President Bush didn't listen to his military advisers about what needed to be done once they toppled Saddam. Sen. Obama's announcing his policy before meeting with the military is foolishness. Why would anyone ignore Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Odierno? That's just plain foolishness.
I'm not surprised. It's utterly predictable.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:11 AM
No comments.
Where's El Tinklenberg?
Has anyone seen El Tinklenberg lately? I visit his blog daily to see if he's announcing any new pollicies or making any attacks on Rep. Michele Bachmann. This post has stayed at the top of his blog since July 3:
Happy 4th of July!Did Mr. Tinklenberg just go on vacation or is it that they've stopped blogging? The reason why I ask is that he'd been rolling out his positions on the issues a week at a time. On June 24, this was posted on his blog:
Housing and Mortgages Week: An IntroductionHe hasn't had a post on the subject since. That's 3 weeks ago. This is disappointing because I actually had commended Mr. Tinklenberg for having a blog. I think that all candidates and elected officials should maintain them.
If anyone has contacts with the Tinklenberg campaign, I'd appreciate it if they contacted him and found out what's happening with their blog.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment 1 by anokacountyred at 15-Jul-08 12:48 PM
No news is good news!
House, Senate D's Splitting With Their Leaders?
Every pundit that you read says that Democrats are united and motivated. While I don't doubt that they're motivated, I strongly question whether they're united. I'm especially skeptical of that after reading John Cornyn's post at RedState :
At last, some Democrats are finally getting the message. The ice around their rigid anti-U.S. production position is starting to crack. (It is mid-July, after all.) At least ten Democratic Senators are now making statements amenable to offshore exploration.I definitely think that Sen. Cornyn is on the right track when he suggests that "Republicans are going to do better in this fall's elections than most pundits assume." We're so worried that we aren't united as Republicans that we haven't noticed that Democrats are split badly. It's time we realized that we can exploit the situation if we just agree on a few modest goals.
But the Democratic leadership is delaying energy-related votes. They evidently fear these proposals could pass. At this rate, I suspect Republicans are going to do better in this fall's elections than most pundits assume.
If Democrats are aching to split with Sen. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, then it's because they're worried about the electoral consequences of blindly following their leadership.
As I said here , I won't suffer defeatist GOP pundits and strategists. This issue is an electoral gold mine for Republicans. If these pundits and strategists won't fall in line, then we need to dump them. The House GOP leadership is pushing the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less agenda hard. Not only that but Sen. Cornyn is hosting a week-long event at his blog on Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. Newt Gingrich penned something for Sen. Cornyn's blog that should get our undivided attention:
In just over a month, over 1.3 million people called on Congress to "Drill Here, and Drill Now" so that they can Pay Less. The American people have spoken. I commend Sen. Cornyn for listening.I've got to make several points, starting with this statement:
The 1.3 million Americans of all political parties who have signed the petition are appealing to Congress to allow environmentally responsible ways to produce more American energy.
They're not calling for higher taxes on oil companies.
They're not blaming foreigners for our energy problems.
They're not begging the Saudis to sell us more oil.
Through our polling at American Solutions we have long known that a whopping 81 percent of Americans support developing more American energy, including oil and coal. And this 81 percent majority is made up of 85 percent of the Republicans, 83 percent of the independents and 76 percent of the Democrats surveyed.
The American people have spoken. I commend Sen. Cornyn for listening.That's the first step of regaining our majorities. PERIOD. If we aren't listening, then we're throwing the GOP bus into neutral. We're spinning our wheels. We're going nowhere. The next logical step is to actually respond to their worries. In this instance, that means pushing drilling hard all day, all week, all the way until Election Day.
Let's think about something else, specifically the polling Newt cites:
"85 percent of the Republicans, 83 percent of the independents and 76 percent of the Democrats" want drilling to start ASAP. Almost 75% of all Democrats want drilling yet Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi stand rigidly opposed.If we keep pushing this until the Democrats' National Convention, divisions will emerge. We'll force them to make a choice: Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less or let's stay on this 'Path to Nowhere'. I've said this before and I'll say it again: We aren't dealing with mental giants. We're dealing with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Most importantly, if we keep pushing Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, we'll chyange people's minds and we'll eventually change policy. If we get the OCS taken off the offlimits list, prices will drop and our economy will once again return to stable footing.
Returning our nation's economy to stable footing and returning to a path to prosperity should be our first priority because that's the type of America most people want to live in.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:41 PM
No comments.
I Didn't Know I Was THAT Influential
Earlier today, I asked why El Tinklenberg's blog hadn't been updated in the last 11 days. I just checked Tinklenberg's blog and they've got something posted. Since they don't have a timestamp on their posts, I don't know what time their latest post went up but at most, it was 5 hours after I asked the question. The unsurprising thing is that they're back to attackign Michele:
And finally, in case you missed it, this morning President George W. Bush recognized the over-whelming evidence against Rep. Michele Bachmann's false promises for a 50% cut in gas prices in four years. Talking about offshore oil drilling, President Bush said: "I readily concede that it's not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will change psychology" ( USA Today , 7/15/2008).Let's first take issue with Tanner's characterization that President Bush debunked "Rep. Michele Bachmann's false promises for a 50% cut in gas prices in four years." While it's accurate to say that President Bush said that opening up the OCS won't "produce a barrel of oil tomorrow", that isn't remotely close to saying that he's admitting that it won't affect pricing. The minute that the OCS is open for exploration is the minute that prices start dropping. That's why so many House and Senate Democrats are privately supporting drilling now. I don't know whether it'll cut prices in half but I kow that history is littered with proof that prices drop anytime the cushion between supply and demand widens.
While that statement is open for questioning, this statement is downright laughable:
Meanwhile, El Tinklenberg continues his push for an all-of-the-above energy policy that will increase use of renewable sources and promote greater efficiency to reduce consumption.Here's Mr. Tinklenberg's idea of an "all-of-the-above energy policy":
The evidence is in and speaks overwhelmingly: global climate change is real. It's the biggest long-term challenge our nation and world face. Those who continue to deny its reality gamble with our children's and grandchildren's futures. We need to reduce America's dependence on the coal and petroleum products that are the primary causes of global warming. Alternatives can be made available in bio-derived, nuclear, solar, and wind energy.Question for Mr. Tinklenberg's campaign: How do you "reduce America's dependence on the coal and petroleum products" while supporting an "all-of-the-above energy policy"? I can wrap my mind around how you could favor reducing "dependence on the coal and petroleum products" while promoting an ALMOST-ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE energy policy but I can't wrap my mind around how you ignore fossil fuels in an "all-of-the-above energy policy."
This is not just an environmental issue. We need to get away from petroleum-based fuels in order to escape the natural security threat of being held captive to hostile or unstable regimes that control our primary sources of energy. Our economy also demands that we minimize dependence upon foreign sources of energy, for the largest single contributor to our current imbalance of trade is the massive wealth we squander on oil. What's more, the bill for gas to fuel the family car is one of the biggest problems for American families' rising cost of living.
These problems are long-range and complex. No immediate or simple remedies are available that will correct the current situation, but prompt action by our nation is essential. I will work hard to see that the following steps are put into law:
Use of incentives in the tax code to encourage and reward conservation of energy for transportation, heating, lighting, and manufacturing.
Implementation of a revenue neutral "carbon" tax, conjoined with tax credits and rebates, to discourage dependency upon our present carbon-based energy infrastructure and to encourage development of alternative and sustainable fuels.
Sensible, progressive increases in CAFE fleet standards for fuel usage of automobiles and trucks. Henry Ford's Model-T got better gas mileage than most cars on the road today. America can do better!
Substantial increases in funding for mass transit and highway improvements to enhance transportation efficiency and reduce gridlock on our streets and highways.
I propose that, under the auspices of the Department of Energy, we put the ingenuity of our scientists to work to improve upon existing alternative fuel technologies and other energy technologies we have yet to imagine. We need a Manhattan Project for Energy Independence. This can easily be funded by means of a windfall tax upon excess earnings of Big Oil. America is ready once again to be challenged to greatness in meeting a great need.
I suspect that this was just the Tinklenberg campaign's attempt to have an energy policy that's almost identical to Rep. Bachmann's policy. This is proof that the devil's often in the details. In this instance, the details show a significant difference in philosophies. Mr. Tinklenberg is still essentially sticking with the official Democratic line of "We can't drill our way out of this crisis."
It's fair to say that Rep. Bachmann is sticking with the GOP policy but it's equally true that Rep. Bachmann helped jumpstart that policy and return it to prominence.
UPDATE: I just got this email from Tanner Curl of the Tinklenberg campaign:
Hi Gary,I'm sorry to hear that Blogger gave the Tinklenberg campaign these troubles. I know what dealing with Blogger is like. That's why I left it in March, 2006. I appreciate Tanner's corerspondence with me and I sincerely hope that their troubles with Blogger are behind them.
I saw your post today and wanted to clarify that soon after July 4th I received an e-mail from blogspot, saying we were flagged as possible spam by their little blog bots. They didn't give a reason. It seemed like an automated e-mail. Our blog was locked until we were cleared of all spam charges today!
And hence, a new post: http://tinklenberg08.blogspot.com/2008/07/were-back.html
Also, we will be continuing the Housing and Mortgages Week at a later date.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-Tanner
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 15-Jul-08 07:54 PM
"I don't know whether it'll cut prices in half but I kow that history is littered with proof that prices drop anytime the cushion between supply and demand widens."
-If it doesn't go down to $2 per gallon, then doesn't that make Bachmann a liar?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-08 10:17 PM
Nope. It'd just makes her wrong. Here's he definition of lie:
an intentional untruth
You might call her overzealous or wrong but you can't say that she intentionally told an untruth.
