July 18-19, 2008
Jul 18 05:27 Dems Promise No Change In Energy Direction Jul 18 13:32 What Democrats Can't Say Jul 18 14:11 Jesse The Truther Jul 18 14:42 Tink's Blog: Michele Bachmann Favors Partisanship Over Compromise Jul 19 02:18 Da Mayor vs. Da Chairman??? Jul 19 13:34 Proof Positive Pelosi Doesn't Care Jul 19 16:06 Offense Vs. Defense
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Dems Promise No Change In Energy Direction
Thursday, Democrats tried providing themselves with political cover for their August recess by introducing a phony bill that wouldn't have increased oil exploration and production by any appreciable amount. Here's the AP's reporting of the Democrats' shenanigans:
Seeking to blunt GOP efforts to permit oil exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, House Democrats are pushing legislation they say would spur drilling on already available lands in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico.The upshot on this is that Democrats are for drilling wherever their environmental allies give them permission. That's THE REASON why they won't consider drilling in ANWR or on the OCS.
Republicans scoffed that the so-called Drill Act, imposing a tougher "use it or lose it" rule on leases already held by oil companies, would do little to boost oil exploration, saying current policies are aimed at the same goal. A vote was set for Thursday.
Democrats say that they're trying to fix the problem. That isn't reality. What's happening is that they're looking busy while hoping that people buy their schtick. Their approach helps them say that they did something on energy. Meanwhile, the Republicans' plan would solve the problem for the near future. The Democrats' plan resembles this cliche:
"After everything was said and done, more was said than done."The American people don't care about whether politicians flapped their gums. They want to know whether the politicians fixed something. The reality is that Democrats are giving into K Street's demands while Republicans are paying attention to Main Street's needs.
The benchmark that Republicans should use is whether Democrats have offered a plan that will open enoough of our proven reserves to make a longlasting effect on gas prices. If the legislation doesn't drop prices longterm, then it's useless legislation.
Here's a portion of Ms. Pelosi's press release :
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the documentation of that amount of land. 33 million of those acres are offshore. So the question for opponents is: 'Why do you not want us to drill offshore?' We do, in 33 million acres. 'Why do you not want us to drill on land?' We do, and tens of millions more in the lower 48 and then this bill takes us to Alaska. Where the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is a bigger source of oil than the ANWR, the refuge in Alaska.I'll answer Ms. Pelosi's question with another question:
"In order to protect the consumer and to increase domestic supply, we're talking about two things. We're talking about protecting the consumer with legislation to curb unnecessary, excessive, and abusive speculation in the marketplace. That debate is going on in the Senate as we speak here right now and will come to the House soon.
If you think that drilling offshore is a great thing, why limit it to 33 million acres? If you're interested in bringing prices down for the next decade, don't we need to increase production dramatically, not halfheartedly? Don't we need to go 'all in' on exploration?
Ms. Pelosi talks about opening up 33 million acres for exploration but noticeably refuses to consider opening up a tiny 2,000 acre patch in ANWR's Coastal Plain. Ms. Pelosi's statements today were strictly meant as soundbite material for the network news. The comments shouldn't be taken seriously. They were all show.
Technroati: Gas Crisis , Crisis of Choice , Nancy Pelosi , Oil Exploration , ANWR , OCS
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 5:28 AM
No comments.
What Democrats Can't Say
David Harsanyi has written a delightfully snarky piece about what Democrats can't say about drilling. Here's a sampling of his article :
The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer. Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.Democrats can only go as far as their environmentalist allies let them. That's what's causing their problems. They've noticed that people have sided with Newt's Drill Here, Drill Now solution. Now they're doing their best to convince us that three-fourths of the nation isn't just wrong but that it's badly mistaken. Good luck with that.
They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.
On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.
Now that reality has crashed the party, we're forced to make a decision. It's an easy choice for most because they know drilling will drop prices quickly. They also know that it'll take time to develop enough alternative options to be a genuine solution.
This isn't just a House or Senate problem either:
Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.Sen. Obama has the same restrictions on him as do House and Senate Democrats have. If Sen. McCain runs hard on solving the immediate problem, this is big trouble for Sen. Obama.
With Newt and House Republicans and John Cornyn turning up the heat, with 74 percent of likely voters calling for drilling on the OCS and 59 percent of likely voters calling for drilling in ANWR, this is approaching the numbers of people opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. You don't win with those numbers opposing you.
I don't have any inside information but I'll make this prediction: I'll bet that Democrats cave somewhat on this issue, which will infuriate their environmentalist allies. They'll be forced into doing that because they'll get obliterated this November if they stick with their current position.
This is an issue that people care deeply about. What's better is that Republicans aren't letting go of this. Instead, they're ramping up their pressure. Based on what I've seen, especially from House Republicans, I can't picture Republicans relenting on this issue. Their relentlessness is changing opinions, which likely means that they're changing votes.
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 1:36 PM
No comments.
Jesse The Truther
It would've been so much fun having Jesse Ventura in the race this time. I found this blurb on him in Charlie Walters' column this morning:
DON'T PRINT THATIt's one thing for Jesse to not like parts of the Twin Cities' media. Lord knows that I've ripped some of the buffoons currently littering the media landscape. It's quite another to say that he prefers propagandists like al-Jazeera and that 9/11 was an inside job.
Former governor Jesse Ventura, who is a member at the TPC Twin Cities in Blaine, site of the 3M Championship, showed up at the course Thursday to play in a pro-am driving his Porsche with a sticker on the back window that read "9-11 was an inside job."
Ventura left the course to do an interview with the Middle East network Al Jazeera.
"I prefer Al Jazeera to the Minnesota media," Ventura said. "I'll talk to them; I won't talk to you."
Jesse's living proof that only buffoons thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.
It would've been fun having Jesse in this race solely for the quotes we would've gotten from him. He would've been a blogger's full employment act. He might've even made Al Franken look relatively sane.
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment 1 by Brian Hall at 19-Jul-08 08:11 PM
Proof that concussions cause permanent brain damage.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Jul-08 11:01 PM
Proof that concussions cause permanent brain damage.
Don't you mean this?
Proof that concussions cause permanent dain bramage.
Tink's Blog: Michele Bachmann Favors Partisanship Over Compromise
I just made my daily visit to El Tinklenberg's blog and found a laugher quote in this post :
Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has called for domestic drilling in Alaska, once again proved that she favors extremist partisanship over moderate compromise. The 6th District doesn't need a representative who demonstrates my-way-or-the-highway leadership that looks out for the pocketbooks of Big Oil over the pocketbooks of Minnesotans.The bill that the Tinklenberg campaign is talking about is the DRILL Act, which stands for Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands Act. The bill would 'allow' oil companies to drill in an area described this way :
[Steny Hoyer] 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.Michele Bachmann voted against this gimmick of a bill. This wasn't a compromise. It would've been total surrender to the short-sighted CYA policies (I use that term lightly) of Pelosi's Democrats.
Questions for the Tinklenberg campaign: If this was such a moderate compromise, why did Democrats bring this up under a closed rule? If it's such a moderate compromise, why didn't they allow any amendments to the bill? Why didn't Speaker Pelosi let many Democrats vote to open drilling on the OCS? Considering the fact that there wasn't a chance for real debate or compromise, who's the "my-way-or-the-highway partisan"?
Mr. Tinklenberg talks about Rep. Bachmann's "my-way-or-the-highway leadership." Why isn't he complaining about Nancy Pelosi's "my-way-or-the-highway leadership"? After all, Ms. Pelosi's leadership didn't allow any amendments. Rep. Bachmann didn't have any say in that closed rule.
Now that we've established the facts of this short-sighted legislation, it's time to ask Mr. Tinklenberg if he would've supported legislation that wouldn't have allowed a vote on actually increasing oil production? Would Mr. Tinklenberg support bringing adequate supplies of oil online? Or would he have blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's instructions?
Finally, would Mr. Tinklenberg have sided with 74 percent of likely voters who favor opening up exploration on the OCS? Or would he have voted for band-aid solutions instead of voting for real solutions?
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Jul-08 08:02 AM
Why is it that "bipartisanship" to a Democrat always means that we agree with THEM, rather than the other way around? On every question, there is a right side and a wrong side, and compromise is just a way of saying that we got the answer only half right.
In short, the Democrats seem overly concerned with the process rather than finding the right solution. It may be why they're so bad at math.
Da Mayor vs. Da Chairman???
In what figures to be a battle royale if it happens, MOB Mayor King Banaian has challenged State DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez to debate him on the Employees Freedom of Choice Act or EFCA. Here's the official letter sent by our Mayor to Chairman Melendez:
Dear Mr. Melendez-If I wasn't such a fiscal conservative (that's cheap in plain English), I'd pay to see that matchup. Let's hope that Chairman Melendez says yes to this opportunity.
The 2008 election season is set to be a defining moment in American labor history.
The Employee Free Choice Act, which the labor union movement has put at the forefront of its 2008 political agenda, has far-reaching implications for America's workforce. The economic, social and political ramifications will be felt for generations to come.
Our organization feels passionately about the negative impact that this legislation would have on the American economy and individual rights. And it is clear from your criticism of our advertising and your defense of card-check unionization that you feel equally passionate in your position.
Thus, in the great history of American political discourse, I would like to challenge you to debate the Employee Free Choice Act and its impact on the American workforce.
I believe that a debate would provide an ample opportunity to better understand the issue, and would provide a forum to determine which side is telling the truth about how this legislation will impact working Minnesotans. The discourse created by the debate gives "card-check" the attention and media focus it rightly deserves.
We propose that a 1-2 hour debate take place at the historic State Office Building in St. Paul this August. Our office will work out any further details with you and I hope that we can agree on terms in a timely fashion.
King Banaian
Chairman of the Minnesotans for Employee Freedom Steering Committee
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:21 AM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 19-Jul-08 08:59 AM
Everybody knows who funds Melendez's group; DFL finances are public information. Is Banaian's funding equally transparent? If yes, let The Cage Match begin!! If not - well, (cheney) 'em - they're just paid stooges and Melendez shouldn't give them the time of day, let alone a hint of credibility.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Jul-08 10:48 AM
Call into today's show & ask him. I'm not your servant.
Proof Positive Pelosi Doesn't Care
This Sunday, Late Edition will play Nancy Pelosi's interview Wolf Blitzer . Several of the things she said are laughable but one thing she said is total spin. Here's the spin that I'm refering to:
But Pelosi's comments come as a new Gallup poll registers the lowest level of congressional approval among Americans in the polling organization's 30-year history of conducting that survey.The 110th Congress doesn't have a signature accomplishment to speak of. The best thing they've done is pass the FISA reform bill but they didn't do that until the warrants had almost expired. Even then, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.
That poll showed that its approval rating had reached an anemic 14 percent, while more than 70 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the job Congress is doing.
The House speaker said she doesn't consider those numbers a negative referendum on the Democrats in charge, saying she thinks they stem largely from Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Everything I see says this is about ending the war, 'I disapprove of Congress' performance in terms of ending the war,'" she said. "In the House, we, of course, have over and over, five or six times, sent to the Senate legislation for a time certain to reduce our deployment in Iraq and bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon. We haven't been able to get it past the Senate or the president of the United States.
To say that Congress' approval rating is lower than Nixon's at the time of his resignation is all because of the war simply isn't credible. It's the biggest pile of BS I've heard in awhile.
Here's how Wolf Blitzer started the interview with her :
BLITZER: Back when you wanted to be in the majority, you issued a press release on April 24, 2006. At that time, the price for a gallon was $2.91.Give Wolf credit for not giving her a softball right out of the gate. Give Ms. Pelosi credit for giving one of the lamest responses I've ever heard. In her estimation, nothing is the House's fault. In Ms. Pelosi's mind, they're more brilliant than Edison.
Among other things, you said then, "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels."
That was then. You've been in power now as the majority for more than a year and a half. The price of a gallon of gas is more than $4. In some parts of the country, including in your area, closer to $5 a gallon. And there's no relief in sight.
What are you doing to fix this? Because a lot of people are disappointed in the record so far.
PELOSI: Well, we have passed in the House of Representatives every one of those initiatives. They've run into a brick wall with the Republicans in the United States Senate and with the president of the United States. But in passing our energy bill, we were able to achieve with public support and outcry...
BLITZER: So it's all the fault of the Senate?
PELOSI: Yes, absolutely.
BLITZER: As simple as that?
PELOSI: Every single one of these bills passed the Congress of the United States. The price of oil is at the doorstep. Four dollars-plus per gallon per oil is attributed to oilmen in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.
Make no mistake, all of these initiatives have passed. We get to the Senate, 59 votes on the, repealing the subsidies, 59 votes on renewable electricity standards, 59 votes...
Ms. Pelosi's opposition to increasing oil production is her way of telling the American people that she doesn't care about the financial woes high gas prices they're feeling. The pain they're feeling is the result of the Democrats' 'drill-only-where-the-environmentalists-give-us-permission' policy.
High gas prices aren't unlike a regressive tax in that they hurt the poorest among us the most. High gas prices hit those that are at the bottom end of the middle class, too.
Simply put, Ms. Pelosi's opposition to drilling is her giving the American consumer the finger. That isn't just unconscienable, it's immoral. It's insulting to hear Democrats say that they're the party of the people. They're nothing of the sort. Her party is the party that, first and foremost, looks out for their rich donors, then the special interests. Only after they've satisfied the special interests do they even consider the plight of the middle class or the small business owner.
Here's another instance where Mr. Blitzer challenges Ms. Pelosi:
BLITZER: There are a lot of people out there, including plenty of Democrats, who say one of the most important things to do right now is to resume offshore drilling off the coast of California, Florida, elsewhere around the United States. Take a look at this poll that CNN/Opinion Research Corporation recently did.This IBD article refutes Ms. Pelosi's claim that President Bush thinks that opening up the OCS and ANWR wouldn't affect prices. Here's how Ms. Pelosi's argument is refuted:
"Do you favor offshore drilling?" Seventy-three percent said yes. "Do you oppose offshore drilling?" Only 27 percent.
You're among the 27 percent. What's wrong with letting the oil companies go ahead and develop those offshore oil drilling opportunities?
PELOSI: Well, there are 33 million acres offshore that all of these companies have the opportunity. These are for lease, and many of them with the environmental approvals to go forward.
That's why in the House on Thursday, today, we have the drill bill. Drill responsibly in leased lands. This does not mean go into protected, environmentally-protected areas and drill.
The impression that the White House would give you is that if you could drill in these protected areas, the price of gasoline will come down. Even the president, in his press conference the other day, acknowledged that that was not the case.
Even if drilling works, it'll take a decade or more for the oil to flow."President Bush and VP Cheney are oilmen. They know about the effects of Reagan's deregulation. President Bush knows better than to think that there wouldn't a price benefit to increasing oil production.
This is quite an argument coming from the Democratic Party, which has made keeping oil off the market a linchpin of its energy policy for decades.
If President Clinton hadn't vetoed the idea of drilling in ANWR back in 1995, we'd have that oil on the market today. Ditto if Congress had approved ANWR drilling in 2002, when President Bush requested it.
Even so, the larger point is false anyway. New oil will be flowing in some cases within three to four years, according to industry estimates. But the impact on prices will be immediate. Why? Because markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply. That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop.
By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within a week of his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy prices began tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a barrel in early 1981 to just $11 by 1986.
I've listened to the portion that Ms. Pelosi is talking about. It's clear that President Bush is attempting to lower expectations. It's disingenuous for Ms. Pelosi to say that President Bush agrees with her that increasing production won't change prices.
Notice that her reply includes this:
This does not mean go into protected, environmentally-protected areas and drill.TRANSLATION: The environment matters more than people. If the environment is protected, their policy is an unqualified success.
Frankly, Ms. Pelosi's and her environmental extremist allies' priorities are off. If their priorities were solid, they'd put people ahead of the environment. That won't happen because the environment is their god.
Isn't it time that we returned Ms. Pelosi to minority status? Isn't it true that we can't afford another 2 years of her in the Speaker's office?
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 19-Jul-08 02:52 PM
So, Gary - in Florida you have:
Republican Governor Bob Martinez, 1987 ; 1991.
Democratic governor Lawton Chiles, 1991 ; 1999: Chiles' second term as Governor was notable as the first time in state history that a Democratic Governor had a legislature controlled by the Republican Party.
Republican Governor Jeb Bush, 1999 ; 2007.
Republican Governor Charlie Crist, 2007 present.
Each and every one of those republicans, oppose (or, they did, if they flip-flopped and now don't) drilling off of Florida's coast. And Senator Linsay Graham, R-South Carolina, adamantly opposed drilling off South Carolina, until he recently flip-flopped.
Why is it you conservatives continue to make the drilling ban a "democrat-republican" issue, when the REAL issue is EVERYBODY in favor of drilling - off SOMEBODY ELSE'S coast, but NOT their own??!?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Jul-08 03:03 PM
I didn't say that it was solely Democrats faults. Gov. Schwarzenegger still gets this wrong.
On the other hand, Democrats have pushed the ANWR ban since 1977. John Kerry promised to filibuster ANWR in 2004.
It's worth noting that Republicans were slow to warm to renewables & conservation but they're now on board with that. They're now the true all-of-the-above party.
BTW, Gov. Crist is on board with drilling now that gas is $4/gal.
Comment 3 by Brian Hall at 19-Jul-08 08:05 PM
You and Wolf are much too kind. Rasmussen reports:
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.
Single digits. Soon, they'll need a decimal point to register at all.
Comment 4 by TwoPuttTommy at 20-Jul-08 08:48 AM
Brian, I would speculate that a significant number of voters registering displeasure are registering displeasure because Cheney and Bush are not being impeached. So as I indeed have great displeasure for Congress, I'm not about to reward Paulsen or Coleman for the FUBAR the misAdministration has created.
So as low as that number is, it isn't going to change the odds that Republicans are blown away in November's elections.
In Minnesota, Pawlenty could become irrelevant as there should be veto-proof majorities in the state senate and house; and it's conceivable that there will be 8 DFL Congressmen and 2 DFL Senators.
Plus a Democrat in the Oval Office.
So be proud of that Congressional Approval Number; it's about the only thing you got.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-08 11:45 AM
In Minnesota, Pawlenty could become irrelevant as there should be veto-proof majorities in the state senate and house; and it's conceivable that there will be 8 DFL Congressmen and 2 DFL Senators.
Tommy, That's one of the funniest comments I've ever read. I know you don't believe it all. You're not THAT stupid.
Nonetheless, keep making such stupid comments. I always enojy a hearty laugh.
Offense Vs. Defense
I just posted something about Speaker Pelosi's interview with Wolf Blitzer . In that interview, Speaker Pelosi couldn't sound more defensive, assigning blame to everyone but the House of Representatives. Now take a look at this YouTube of Michele Bahcmann's interview with CNN's Ali Velshi:
It isn't difficult to spot Rep. Bachmann's comfort level when she extends an invitation to Mr. Velshi to join them on the trip. When Mr. Velshi asks why Democrats aren't joining Republicans on the trip, Rep. Bachmann replies "Good question. We'd rather it was a bipartisan delegation."
While most reports call this a trip to ANWR, it's also true that ANWR is just one part of this fact-finding trip. As Michele points out in this post , the delegation also paid a visit to NREL, the National Renewable Energy Lab, in Golden, CO.
Isn't it a bit curious that Democrats won't participate in this trip? It seems to me that the delegation stopping at NREL shows that they're committed to alternatives. Why aren't Democrats interested in visiting ANWR? After all, it isn't like it's a scenic area :
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment 1 by Brian Hall at 19-Jul-08 07:54 PM
Hi, Michelle;
There's an "alternative" you may not have looked at.
There is a company and associated non-profit working to bring to fruition and to market a small, simple fusion reactor, called the Focus Fusion generator.
It uses boron, a common element (enough available Earth-side to outlast the sun), and hydrogen, to produce electricity directly, with no escaping radiation or waste.
Their end product is projected, within 5-8 years, to be a prefab install-anywhere system costing about $250,000 and generating 5MW almost 24/7, at a price of around 0.25 cents/kwh (yes, 1/4 of one cent).
This would cut the Oil Economy off at the knees, and make it simple to pretty much eliminate pollution of every kind.
Give it a look. focusfusion.org , lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com .
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Jul-08 10:47 PM
Brian, Thanks for that suggestion. I know that the Bachmann staff read LFR on a daily basis. I'm certain that they'll forward this idea to her.
BTW, boron was a material that fishing rod manufacturers used for top fishing rods. I owned one for awhile. I was heartbroken when it broke.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 20-Jul-08 06:02 PM
You know Brian years ago they made Back To The Future. According to the plot lines we're suppose to have flying cars before the year 2020. Doesn't look like we will have that flying car by 2020. Brian they are saying 5-8 years according to you. What if it's like 13-21 years? What if it's 42 years?
The science to get out oil and into production for things like driving (your post is talking about electricty) is more dependable. The higher end numbers are being provided by Democrats who don't want to pass the policy.
Furthermore Brian I heard this on the radio only two percent of our electricity production comes from oil. Even if this product does what you claim it will hurt coal and nuclear more than oil.
Of course you don't want oil at all apparently.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
