July 27-28, 2008
Jul 27 01:04 Does Anyone Believe This Polling??? Jul 27 03:04 Discharge Petitions: The Path to Delegitimizing Nancy Pelosi? Jul 27 10:44 Will Citizen of the World Obama Play Well In Pennsylvania? Jul 27 15:16 Bambi In the Headlights??? Jul 27 17:06 Have I Intimidated Mr. Tinklenberg? Jul 27 18:48 Environutters, D's Grasping At Straws Jul 28 02:44 Do American Voters Pefer Temporary or Permanent Relief? Jul 28 21:09 Tink's Blog Links to Susan Gaertner LTE
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Does Anyone Believe This Polling???
Liberal in the Land of Conservatives posted about a poll that supposedly shows a majority of people "isn't buying the arguments" being made by President Bush and others pushing for opening the OCS and ANWR. here's the press release accompanying the poll results:
To: NATIONAL EDITORSHere's the poll's first question and the replies to it:
Contact: Kathy Westra, The Wilderness Society, +1-202-429-2642, kathy_westra@tws.org; or Cindy Shogan, Alaska Wilderness League, +1-202-544-5205, cindy@alaskawild.org
Majority Says New Drilling Would Enrich Oil Companies Rather than Benefit Consumers, and 76 Percent Support New Technology Development Over Drilling
WASHINGTON, July 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American public is not buying the arguments of President Bush and the oil industry that new drilling will lower gas prices, a new poll finds. Despite a well-funded campaign to convince lawmakers to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the offshore waters of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, and to allow new oil shale projects in the Rocky Mountain West, a majority (54%) of Americans do not see more drilling as a solution to high gas prices. Instead, the public overwhelmingly believes (76% to 19%) that policymakers should focus on investing in new energy technologies including renewable fuels and more efficient vehicles rather than expanding exploration and drilling for more oil. These findings were reported in a national poll conducted over the past week by Belden Russonello and Stewart, and released today.
A significant majority of Americans (63%) said that the Presidents proposal to open up public lands to oil and gas drilling is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers. A substantial majority (66%) said that the small percentage of public lands still protected from oil drilling should remain off limits because they are valuable natural resources that cannot be replaced.
When asked the question, Do you think that allowing oil companies to drill in public lands and offshore areas that are currently off limits to drilling will result in lower gas prices for American consumers or not?, 54% of poll respondents said they did not believe more drilling would lower gas prices. Although Americans were initially divided on a general question of opening protected public lands and offshore areas to drilling, with a slight majority (53%) in favor, and 41% opposed, the poll found that support for drilling weakened significantly when those polled were presented with other energy policy options. When asked the question: Looking to the future, which one of the following do you think should be a more important priority for government: Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles, or expanding exploration and drilling for more oil?, more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents favored new technology and renewables, and only a small number (19%) favored expanded oil drilling.
The poll, conducted by Washington, D.C., research firm Belden Russonello & Stewart, was a nationally representative telephone survey of 821 adults between July 16 and 20, 2008. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.5 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. A copy of the complete survey is here:
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS-Omnibus-Poll_07-22-08.pdf
SOURCE The Wilderness Society
Q1. The U.S. has certain public lands and offshore areas that are protected from oil and gas drilling. Should Congress open the protected areas to oil and gas drilling or should Congress continue to protect these areas? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?If the blitz isn't having any effect on people, then why are a majority of people in this poll either strongly or somewhat open to drilling?
STRONGLY OPEN TO DRILLING- 34%
SOMEWHAT OPEN TO DRILLING- 19
SOMEWHAT CONTINUE TO PROTECT- 13
STRONGLY CONTINUE TO PROTECT- 28
DK/REF 7
Here's the second question and the reply:
Q2. Looking to the future, which one of the following do you think should be a more important priority for government: Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles; or expanding exploration and drilling for more oil?It isn't surprising that people see renewables and more efficient automobiles as a priority for the future. That doesn't have anything to do with what they want done now .
INVEST IN NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- 76%
EXPAND EXPLORATION AND DRILLING- 19
DK/REF- 5
Let's also notice that this poll was authorized by environmental groups. I've seen two polls by nationally reputable polling companies that say the overwhelming majority of Americans want drilling. One favored it by a 73-27 margin, the other by a 74-26 margin.
Next, let's look at Jack Kelly's column in the Washington Times :
In the six years between President Bush's inauguration in 2001 and the Democrats' assumption of control of Congress in 2007, the price of gasoline rose an average of 14 cents a year. Since the Democrats took over Congress, the price of gas has doubled, the inflation monster has reawakened, and the recession wolf is sniffing at our door.I'll trust Larry Kudlow's predictions and Jack Kelly's analysis alot more than I'll trust polling authorized by The Wilderness Society or the Alaska Wilderness League. My only hope is that Democrats continue beliving this polling. If they do, they'll be disappointed on the first Tuesday this November.
I know. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) was the first logical fallacy they taught back when logic was taught in school. It may merely be coincidence that things went to hell in a handbasket since the Democrats took over.
Or maybe not. Here's another coincidence. On July 15, President Bush announced he was lifting the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling. In the 24 hours that followed, crude oil futures plunged $9.26 (6.3 percent), the biggest oil price decline in 17 years.
"Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a new drop of oil has been lifted," said financial analyst Larry Kudlow. "If Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That's the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime."
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:05 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 27-Jul-08 09:44 AM
Not to mention that Zogby, WSJ, Rassmussen, Quinnipiac and a whole host of others have polling out that says the opposite and does so with a much larger sample and much less leading questions!
LL
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 10:11 AM
You know it's a winner when the Democrats in two key states at least in their quest for 60 (Minnesota and Lousiana are both saying they're are open to drilling with conditions). If I'm right Franken has taken a position that mirrors Coleamn. The difference being if it's still an issue in 2009 will Franken vote that way? No way. He's just saying it to get elected now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 10:15 AM
Franken's position is that he'll support drilling where it's already permitted. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Franken's position & that of Tinklenberg's & Walz's.
They'll only go as far as their environutter allies let them.
Discharge Petitions: The Path to Delegitimizing Nancy Pelosi?
We've all heard about Nancy Pelosi's insistence that bills containing provisions for increasing oil production wouldn't see the light of day. I've known all along that Pelosi doesn't have final say on that if enough legislators in the House sign a discharge petition. As Michael Franc writes , it's time to put additional pressure on pro-drilling Democrats. It's time for an in-your-face approach to undercut Ms. Pelosi's authority.
But not only has Pelosi decreed that legislative proposals to allow for the production of American energy, whether it's oil and natural gas offshore or in Alaska, new nuclear plants, oil shale from Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, or promising coal-to-liquid technology, won't see the light of day on the House floor. She has even fallen into the trap of allowing this to become a test of her leadership. Senior House Democrats understand this and will be reluctant to challenge her. The New York Times reported that Pelosi informed her leadership team that "a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she was having none of it." Pelosi, the Times added, "can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor."Now that we've identified the tool to undercut Ms. Pelosi, we need to knwo if it's possible to get enough representatives to sign onto a discharge petition. Thus far the answer is no, though that's likely to change if we turn the spotlight on pro-energy Democrats:
Oh, really? A procedural device is available to House minorities when the majority locks up popular legislation that could command a majority if given a chance on the House floor. It's called a discharge petition.
Quietly, in recent weeks House Republican leaders have adopted precisely this strategy. Rank-and-file Republicans have been filing one discharge petition per week (five thus far), demanding floor action on a far-reaching energy agenda. The agenda includes bills to construct new oil refineries; drill for oil and natural gas offshore as well as on a tiny portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge; repeal regulations that needlessly increase the price of gasoline; produce energy from alternative sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid; and explore the next generation of oil and natural gas fields in deep-sea regions far off our coasts.The cost is steep to sign onto a discharge petition. At best, it essentially ends a representative's chances for advancement. At worst, it invites a primary challenger the next time they run. Here are the numbers that Mr. Franc has pulled together as either signed onto the discharge petitions or possibilities:
With little media coverage, and lacking the visible support of business groups, conservative organizations or talk radio, these petitions have nevertheless garnered as many as 153 signatures, with one Democrat, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii), even risking the wrath of his leadership by signing on.It's time to turn up the spotlight and either force Pelosi's hand or imperil Democrats in this November's elections.
An informal head count suggests there are an additional 75 to 100 House members, including those 40 Democrats, who, based on their previous support for proposals to increase American energy production, could be open to signing these petitions, thereby pushing the number of signatures over the required 218.
If Democrats don't sign onto these discharge petitions, shouldn't they be highlighted in campaign commercials of siding with the environmentalists instead of with their constituents? Every Republican challenger running against a Democrat who won't sign the discharge petitions should put ads together highlighting the Democrat's fealty to Ms. Pelosi.
For Republicans, this isn't the time to back down. Now is the time to display a spine and start playing hardball with this issue. It's just that simple.
Nonetheless, I like Mr. Franc's idea:
Should the conservative media, the conservative movement, and, yes, the president (his soapbox still carries weight) catch on to this strategy, pressure would increase on pro-energy lawmakers to sign on. Voters would learn that the Speaker's word isn't final. And we just might get a real debate on the merits of producing more American energy.It's time that Rush, Mssrs. Hannity, Beck, Hewitt and Boortz got on board. If they do, Democrats would find themselves painted into a tight corner.
More importantly, it's time we taught Ms. Pelosi that it's We The People , not smarmy politicians like her, that hold the keys to the kingdom.
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 3:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Jul-08 08:40 AM
I always object when I find Democrats acting as if they would rather "have the issue" for the upcoming election than to pass useful legislation. Now I find myself encouraging Republicans to do the same thing. Why "delegitimize" Nancy Pelosi when Republicans can retake the Congress with this issue and oust her from the Speaker's chair?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 27-Jul-08 08:41 AM
By the way, I understand that the ban on offshore drilling expires in September, so unless Pelosi brings the ban up for a vote, drilling starts anyway. True?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 09:00 AM
Jerry, they'll pass a continuing resolution to keep the government running. That CR will contain language that will keep the ban in place. That's what they've done every year in the past.
We own this issue. Now it's just a matter of highlighting Pelosi's stubbornness.
Comment 4 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 10:04 AM
Right now what Nancy is doing is not letting any amendments be offered. If no amendments are offered it needs a two thirds vote. Does the CR which Nancy will use since she won't do a normal bill need a 2/3 vote or can it be amended?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 10:12 AM
Good question, Walter. I suspect it will be a closed rule because it will have been agreed to to keep the government running.
The last thing Republicans can afford to do is shut down the government. That's political disaster for them.
Will Citizen of the World Obama Play Well In Pennsylvania?
In her latest column , Pittsburgh Tribune Review columnist Salena Zito suggests that Pennsylvania could present a challenge for 'citizen of the world' Obama. I find Ms. Zito's scenarios entirely plausible.
The key for McCain is to win over Clinton Democrats from the primary as well as to maximize turnout among Republicans and pro-McCain coalitions.Let's remember how badly Obama performed with blue collar workers. Despite all his "Citizen of the World" talk, Sen. Obama still doesn't connect with blue collar workers. Remember state after state where Hillary pummeled Obama with blue collar workers. That wasn't just a trend. That wasn't an accident.
He needs geographical voting blocs to go his way, too. He must win the traditionally conservative "T" across the top of the state and down the center but he also must "corner" Obama, meaning a four-corner strategy of wins in Erie (the northwest), Allegheny, Washington and Westmoreland counties (the southwest), Scranton, Lackawanna, Luzerne and Wilkes-Barre (the northeast) and Bucks County (the southeast).
It was state after state telling Sen. Obama that they didn't like his statement about them clinging to their guns and their religion because of their poverty.
There's an important rule to remember in all this: Just because the In Love Media isn't talking about this doesn't mean that blue collar Americans have forgotten his statements. They still see Sen. Obama as an elitist. After his badmouthing of America and his apologizing for America in his Berlin speech, rest assured that people are being reminded that Sen. Obama doesn't share their views of America.
From everything that I've read, the T is very conservative. I also remember that Pittsburgh and the surrounding countryside are home to alot of active duty, reserve and retired military. I think Diana Irey once told Hannity & Colmes that that bloc represented 20+ percent of the voters in PA-12. Surely those voters will be open to Sen. McCain's message.
Then there's this:
Ceisler cautions that Democrats should not forget "the Ridge factor", former two-term Republican governor Tom Ridge, considered a hometown boy from Erie down to Allegheny County, "even if he is not on the ticket."Hillary used Rendell extensively in her campaign. Don't bet that McCain didn't pick up on that. While I can't picture McCain picking Ridge as his running mate, I can see him campaigning with him throughout Pennsylvania to drive up Republican turnout and to cut into Obama's margins in other areas.
What will be the final outcome in Pennsylvania? I don't know. What I'm certain of is that I'll be paying attention to what Ms. Zito writes about in her columns and on her blog, which is titled the Forty Fourth Estate . I highly recommend bookmarking Ms. Zito's blog if you're a political junkie like me.
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 06:58 PM
Garry:
One possible thing to keep in mind is the impact that the Congressional races might have in the state. There are at least two races where you have serious candidates running in districts which the Democrats control (Russell in the Murtha seat and the Penalta versus Kanjorski). Not to mention there were a bunch of close races in the down year of 2006. If the Republicans in each district working their butt to get turnout up to win their races they might drag up Mccain.
What do you think?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 07:02 PM
Those aren't the only races in PA to watch, Walter. Melissa Hart is trying to retake her seat. I'll have a better rundown of those races soon.
Bambi In the Headlights???
During his interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw , Sen. Obama showed himself to be as clueless as a deer caught in a car's headlights. Here's the first proof of that:
MR. BROKAW: That prompted this radio ad from your opponent John McCain, which is running today. So let's listen to that and then respond.We don't know??? Who's he kidding??? To not send in more troops is to have continued fighting the war with the President Bush/Donald Rumsfeld strategy. Wasn't he critical of the Rumsfeld strategy and of President Bush in general?
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: (From political ad) Now that it's clear that the surge has succeeded and brought victory in Iraq within sight, Senator Obama can't quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the even greater error of insisting that, even in hindsight, he would still oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. That's not exactly my idea of the judgment we seek in a commander-in-chief.
MR. BROKAW: That's a radio speech from Senator John McCain that is running on this Sunday in America. He's referring to what you had to say on January 10th, 2007...
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
MR. BROKAW: ...and repeated several times. Let's listen to you now and your immediate reaction to the idea of the surge back in the beginning of 2007.
SEN. OBAMA: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse.
MR. BROKAW: We're not talking about angels on the head of a pin here, but let me ask you a direct question.
SEN. OBAMA: All right.
MR. BROKAW: Do you believe that President Maliki would be in a position to more or less endorse your timetable of getting troops out within 16 months if it had not been for the surge?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, we don't know , because in my earlier statements, I mean, I know that there's that little snippet that you ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops. Now, I, I...
MR. BROKAW: But couldn't they make that political decision because troops were there to help them make it.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, the...well, the...look, there's no doubt, and I've said this repeatedly, that our troops make a difference. If...you know, they do extraordinary work. The troops that I met, they were proud of their work, they had made enormous sacrifices, they had fought, they had helped to construct schools and, and rebuilt the countryside. But, for example, in Anbar Province, where we went to visit, the Sunni awakening took place before the surge started, and tribal leaders made a decision that, instead of fighting the Americans, we're going to work with the Americans against al-Qaeda. That was a political decision that was made that has made a huge difference in this entire process.
At that point in history, there were only three options: try Petraeus' counterinsurgency plan, stay with the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy or the Murtha plan. Sen. Citizen of the World voted for the Murtha plan. He voted to cut off funding for the troops because he was the purist on the war, the presidential candidate that always opposed the war.
Not only did he try triangulation in this interview, he admits that he talked in circles in the debate that his clip came from. Check this out:
First, they play the clip where he says that he isn't "persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse ." Then he admits that "there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence."
Sen. Citizen of the World can't have it both ways. He can't say in one sentence that the Surge will make things worse, then say that it would also "temporarily quell the violence." Perhaps Sen. Obama can explain how a miltary strategy could make things worse while temporarily quelling violence.
Later in the interview, Mr. Brokaw talked about how Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks were critical of the Obamessiah's Berlin speech. Here's Sen. Obama's reply:
SEN. OBAMA: Let me say first of all, there were a bunch of really good reviews that you didn't, you didn't put up on the screen. I'd, I'd say there were about nine good reviews for every, every bad one.My first response to Sen. Obama would be harsh: Who cares if the Adoring Media gives you gaga reviews? They could've written those reviews without going on the trip. It's as if Sen. Obama doesn't realize that the Adoring Media hurt him with the people he needs to attract, namely blue collar workers in Bethlehem, PA and Youngstown, OH.
Sen. Obama is living in an adoration bubble. When he holds a rally, thousands of people come to see him. When he talks with the press, they toss him softball questions. It's likely that he thinks that he's universally adored.
History says that there aren't many presidents that are adored. The ones that are are the presidents that made gritty, difficult decisions. There are fewer presidential candidates that've been adored. In fact, I don't recall any since starting voting in 1974.
It's time that Sen. Obama realized that many voters, myself included, picture him as a silver-tongued empty suit. I know that he isn't stupid. It's just that his record is paper-thin and unimpressive.
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 3:18 PM
No comments.
Have I Intimidated Mr. Tinklenberg?
Awhile back, July 15th to be precise, I asked what happened that caused the silence on El Tinklenberg's blog. Later that day, Tanner Curl, his blogger, sent me this email :
Hi Gary,Now Mr. Tinklenberg's blog has gone silent again. I've been harsh on him, particularly about his energy policy, which he described as an all-of-the-above approach. He even went so far as to insinuate that Rep. Bachmann really didn't favor drilling in this post . Here's the title of that post:
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
Bachmann opposes comprehensive domestic drilling planThe trouble with that assertion is that it has nothing to do with reality. It's cherrypicking at its worst. Rep. Bachmann voted against a show-and-tell bill that sounded like Pelosi's Democrats were doing something without actually doing anything.
Whether I've intimidated Tinklenberg or not (I'm betting not), one thing that I'm wondering: With a shortage of COH, and with a need to get his message out, why isn't Mr. Tinklenberg making the most of this blog? It's his most cost-effective way of connecting with voters and spreading his message.
Admittedly, I'm biased. That said, Mr. Tinklenberg hasn't run a great campaign thus far. I haven't seen proof that his campaign has had any impact on this race. If he doesn't change his tactics quickly, he'll soon be accurately refered to as the forgotten candidate. (That's if he's refered to at all.)
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 27-Jul-08 07:13 PM
They are, Gary, THEY ARE! Every time I speak with anyone from the campaign ALL they talk about is how deeply scared they are of Gary Gross and Let Freedom Ring Blog. ;)
I know that I am scared of you. ;)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 08:21 PM
Eric, Did I detect your tongue being planted firmly in cheek when you said that??? LOL
PS- If they aren't, they should be. LOL LOL
Comment 3 by Political Muse at 27-Jul-08 08:40 PM
I know they should be, you are a mountain of a man with an analytical ability rivaled only by the likes of Stephen Hawking.
I would NEVER lie to you Gary!
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 11:21 PM
Who's Stephen Hawking?
Environutters, D's Grasping At Straws
This Washington Post article esposes the environutters' desperation in their arguments against drilling on the OCS. Here's how Cathy Duvall, the national political director of the Sierra Club, tried arguing against drilling:
"Apparently, hundreds of thousands of gallons of spilled oil, dead fish and oil-covered birds aren't ideal conditions for peddling a misguided plan for more offshore drilling," said Cathy Duvall, the national political director of the Sierra Club. "Unfortunately, the risk for such spills, and far worse, would only increase if John McCain and George Bush get their way and allow Big Oil to begin the 'exploitation' of our coasts."Much to my delight, the McCain campaign didn't sit still. Here's their response:
McCain and his advisers reject such criticism, saying the safety record for deep-sea oil rigs is very good. The oil slick in the Mississippi River was caused by a collision between a tanker and a barge, not a leak at an oil rig.There's only one way for us to never spill another drop of oil. That's to never use another drop of oil. Clearly, that isn't happening anytime soon. Will this spill stop the momentum for drilling? I'd bet against it. I'm betting that the American people will demand better safety precautions, then resume their call for increasing oil production.
That isn't what the Cathy Duvalls of the world want to hear. That certainly isn't what vulnerable House Democrats were hoping to hear. Ms. Pelosi's my-way-or-the-highway leadership style is putting their re-elections in danger. It isn't helpful that the Democrats' presidential nominee-in-waiting puts forth this flimsy gimmick of a plan:
Obama aides say the Democrat supports legislation that would encourage oil companies to drill in offshore areas that are already approved but not used. And aides cite his plan for a $20 billion economic stimulus package that would provide rebates that people could use to pay for gasoline as well as efforts to crack down on oil speculators who drive up prices on the world market.This is entirely bassackwards. Sen. World Citizen wants to give people money to pay their gas bills? Won't that cause them to use more gas, thereby making matters worse? Furthermore, why haven't Democrats explained why they're ok with some drilling but not others? What's their logic behind that smoke-and-mirrors policy?
Team Obama isn't doing themselves any favors with statements like this:
"There's a real choice in this election between John McCain's promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis...and Barack Obama's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy," said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.Hari, voters are choosing drilling over short-term relief by a 3-to-1 margin. You might not want to use that argument very often.
While it's true that President Bush isn't all that popular right now, that doesn't mean that people have totally tuned him out. In fact, on this issue, people have tuned him in. The other point worth making is that it isn't just President Bush and John McCain that's advocating drilling. It's John Cornyn, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and a host of other fresh faces.
What's also helping Republicans is their pushing this common sense policy:
More than 100 House Republicans marched onto the Capitol steps this week to introduce the American Energy Act, which includes drilling offshore and in the oil shale of Western mountain regions but also contains increased tax benefits for businesses and families that reduce their energy consumption .Anybody care to wager how popular that legislation is? I'm betting that the vast majority of voters will think that that's a great piece of legislation. What's worse for Democrats is that Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Reid stand steadfastly against drilling in new territories offshore and in ANWR. That's what I call making a bad situation worse.
Republicans say their embrace of more domestic drilling and a dramatic increase in funding for the development of renewable fuels puts them squarely in line with voters, who polls show support both policy initiatives, especially when linked to concern about years of gas at $4 a gallon or more.Contrast the GOP's listening to the roar of approval for their policies to Ms. Pelosi's steadfastness in not listening to the voters. How much will this help Republicans is still to be determined. If Ms. Pelosi doesn't back down fast, she might find herself getting trampled when her vulnerables revolt by signing a discharge petition .
If that stampede happens, it'll damage Ms. Pelosi and Sen. World Citizen badly. It'll also show people that the GOP is the Party of common sense solutions. That can only help Sen. McCain and the downticket races.
Here in Minnesota alone, the GOP's steadfastness is playing a major role in the CD-6 race, where Rep. Bachmann has been a leader of the Drill Here, Drill Now movement. It's also impacting the race in MN-1, where Dr. Brian Davis is raising fistfuls of campaign cash by contrasting his position on energy policy with Rep. Tim Walz's position of doing whatever Ms. Pelosi tells him to do.
Despite all the polling showing intense, massive support for increasing drilling, Democrats still insist that this isn't impacting races:
Democrats point out that voter support for drilling plummets when surveys note that drilling would not produce new, usable gas for years and would not immediately affect gas prices at the pump.Sen. Schumer should have a Pinocchio examination after that whopper. I'm supposed to believe that intense overwhelming support on the biggest issue of this election cycle isn't moving votes?
"We think that the public understands that you can't drill your way out of the problem," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told reporters last week. "We think the Republican slogan is 'Big Oil now, Big Oil forever.'"
I'll bet that blue collar workers in Pennsylvania's T and throughout Ohio will disagree with Sen. Schumer. I'm betting that farmers in Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin care about the price of a gallon of gas. I'm betting that OTR truckers care about drilling now and paying less.
Finally, I'm betting that more people are worried about high gas prices emptying their wallets than are worried about Big Oil's profits.
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 07:05 PM
I think part of the mantra the Democrats have been trying is that they have been claiming drilling hasn't worked. That's kind of hard when they haven't allowed drilling.
Furthermore if you have a brain that means you know unless some new sources of oil are found american oil production will continue to go down and we will have to import more oil.
The trouble for the Democrats is you don't have to have a college education to understand this!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Political Muse at 27-Jul-08 08:19 PM
"Dr. Brian Davis is raising fistfuls of campaign cash"
And you question my credibility? Without a big fat loan of $100,000 from himself, Davis brought in only a little more than Elwyn Tinklenberg. If you are going to question Tink's fundraising efforts you really ought to be doing the same for Dr. Davis.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 08:22 PM
I thought he'd raised close to $400K this quarter.
Comment 4 by Political Muse at 27-Jul-08 08:38 PM
It was like $390,000 with a "fistful" loan to himself of $100,000 and another $2000 donation. Compared to Tink, he only raised about $10,000 fistfuls more.
;)
Comment 5 by Walter hanson at 28-Jul-08 01:32 AM
Of course political muse you can try to spin it that way. According to the FEC:
Davis has more net cash on hand than Tinklenberg by about the sum you described.
But the interesting thing is that David kicks butt in individual contributions by $70,000 (keep in mind Tinklenberg ran before and in theory has a built in base) What keeps Tinklenberg's cash competive is that he has gotten about $180,000 more in pac contributions than Davis (a lot of it labor pacs and I believe 9 congressional committees of other democrats). If you want to say Tinklenberg is doing great how come he has to rely on PACS. Davis at least is counting on individuals plus his own wallet. There was nothing wrong with Dayton doing that in his multiple races.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Do American Voters Pefer Temporary or Permanent Relief?
Thus far, it's fair to characterize the difference between the Democrats' solution to the oil crisis and the GOP's solution is one of short-term vs. long-term. Here's a quote from Harry Reid on his impending dilemma:
He isn't the only senator with that mindset:On the Senate side, majority leader Harry Reid has talked about offering Republicans a floor vote on the issue, but he blocked amendments on the "Stop Excessive Energy Speculation" bill, including a proposal to lift the ban on offshore drilling.
"Republicans once again have run away from an opportunity to provide a short-term solution to our energy crisis," he said after the vote.
Obama aides say the Democrat supports legislation that would encourage oil companies to drill in offshore areas that are already approved but not used. And aides cite his plan for a $20 billion economic stimulus package that would provide rebates that people could use to pay for gasoline as well as efforts to crack down on oil speculators who drive up prices on the world market.Reid's and Obama's initiatives do little to help consumers and small businesses over the next 5-10 years. It isn't a stretch to think that they're really only about bringing relief for the duration of the election season. I further suspect that they know that if they aren't seen as doing something, they'll get hurt this election season, especially Sen. Obama.
The good news for Sens. Reid and Obama is that they are doing something. The bad news is that I'm joining forces with the MOB and others in the Right Blogosphere in letting voters know that what they're doing is playing politics instead of finding solutions to their problems. There's another bit of bad news heading their direction. We're going to tell voters WHY the Democrats aren't seriously trying to find a solution.
The environutters must've been upset when they heard about this:
Next Tuesday, a bipartisan working group plans to release a final draft of a comprehensive energy plan that includes the lifting of the ban. The plan locks in 40 percent of royalties from new leases on the outer continental shelf for conservation, research on renewable energy, environmental cleanup, and funding for low-income energy assistance, says David Helfert, a spokesman for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii, a cofounder of the working group with Rep. John Peterson (R) of Pennsylvania.Rep. Abercrombie and Rep. Peterson deserve our applause for putting solutions ahead of political gamesmanship. Whiel they're working on finding a solution, though, Ms. Pelosi, Sen. Reid and Sen. Obama will be doing everything they can to submarine their efforts. Make no mistake about this: If they put this package together, they'll get it voted on, even if it requires a discharge petition. If that happens, Pelosi, Reid and Obama will be embarassed while Sen. McCain, John Boehner and President Bush will be the big winners politically.
If such a bill passes the House and Reid refuses to take it up, he'll be seen as the obstructionist who didn't vote on a solution that 70+ percent of voters want. If that happens, I can see the NRSC's ads. They'll say something like "Want to drill? Vote Republican." Or they might say "Voting Democrat is a vote against Drilling."
Meanwhile, Sen. McCain would be able to say that he was on the right side of the biggest domestic issue and the biggest national security issue of this election.
All things considered, I'd rather play that hand than Obama's.
Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 2:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jul-08 10:47 AM
I'll say it again, I hope the bipartisanship fails and the GOP rides the issue all the way through November. THEN they can do something right away and get Congress' approval numbers up for a change.
The Dems position is completely nonviable, and I have no intention of trying to rescue them from it. They don't even have the short term fix right. All they have to do to lower prices immediately is to announce that they will consider drilling in the OCS and prices will fall. They fell as soon as Bush announced he was rescinding the executive order, and that quelled the speculators in ways that this bill cannot possibly do.
They're also just blowing smoke with talk of releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve. They're talking about 3-1/2 days worth! I suppose that's a "short term" fix, but mostly it's a small flash in a very big pan, too small to get them any votes. That's why they want Bush to do it.
Let's solve the problem permanently and better, with a one-party solution after the election.
Comment 2 by Chuck Hyde at 28-Jul-08 04:02 PM
I think this is a big issue for the Democrats in November and they are going to come down on the losing side of it.
There are two problems for them.
One, this is not something the MSM can bail them out on. On a lot of issues, the media hides the facts and provides cover for the Dems. This is an issue they cannot hide, it hits voters in the face every time they go to the pump. Further, it is one they cannot blame the Republicans for, they are simply on the wrong side of the issue.
Two, they are in so deep with the far left on this issue, its hard to come back to a rational center. The people paying their bills, the liberal donors, are keeping them from moving. They are essentially stuck in a tough spot. Move to the center, anger their base, don't move, lose the moderates.
I think this is ultimately going to be a large problem for Obama and the congressioanl Dems in the fall.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Jul-08 05:36 PM
Chuck, I totally agree with you on both points. This issue might well be their Waterloo.
I pointed out in a previous post that Sen. Schumer wants us to believe that their candidates are on the 27% side of the most important pocketbook issue of this election & that they aren't being hurt by that.
They might get away with that on a peripheral issue. They can't get away with that on THE CENTRAL ISSUE of the campaign.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 29-Jul-08 04:06 PM
We often talk about Republicans as the "stupid party," and in this case it is certainly possible that they will again fail to recognize and capitalize on a political issue, preferring instead to compromise or "find bipartisan solutions." Poppycock, this one is black and white.
In this case, it is the Dems arrogance, not stupidity (though one can argue they mutually reinforce) that may cost them (I hope, I hope) their Congressional majorities. They firmly believe that they are right-- they're never wrong-- and that their buddies in the MSM will spin this in their favor as they have so many other issues in the past. I can only hope they maintain their obstinance. I can imagine no better outcome in November than a McCain presidency and a Republican Congress and Senate.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 29-Jul-08 05:31 PM
Jerry, Republicans are playing this exactly right. They're keeping the heat on. They're certainly making their case frequently to the American people. They're getting the word out.
While I know that there's a bipartisan group working on legislation that would open the OCS & ANWR, I also know that Ms. Pelosi won't willingly let it get a vote. I also know that the only way it'll get a vote is if they get 218 signatures on a discharge petition.
I just talked with a legislative staffer & this staffer thinks it's an uphill climb, though not impossible.
Tink's Blog Links to Susan Gaertner LTE
A day after I wondered with tongue planted firmly in cheek if I'd intimidated Mr. Tinklenberg , Tanner posted an LTE from DFL candidate for governor Susan Gaertner in today's St. Cloud Times . It's curious that Ms. Gaertner only mentioned that she's the Ramsey county attorney. Why didn't she mention that she's a DFL candidate for governor? But that's just a side issue. The issue that deserves our undivided attention is that Ms. Gaertner is making some irresponsible statements. Here's what she said:
The congresswoman's plan, announced a couple weeks ago, was simple: Drill. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drill in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the inner shelf, the outer shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, and in Lake Mille Lacs. (Just kidding about that last one.)Ms. Gaertner's invectives aside, the truth is that this characterization isn't accurate. Perhaps Ms. Gaertner wasn't paying attention to Rep. Bachmann's recent statement that she supports the tax credits for alternative energy development. I hope at some point she'll take notice of the American Energy Act, which Minority Leader John Boehner has introduced. Here's a summary of what's included in the America Energy Act:
To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:What part of this doesn't Ms. Gaertner and Mr. Tinklenberg understand? Does this sound like a drill only plan? The least Ms. Gaertner can do is get her facts straight. What's worse is that I have to roll my eyes when she makes this statement:
To improve energy conservation and efficiency, the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies, the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
While the congresswoman may believe she is right, the sad truth is that after 24 years as a prosecutor I know deception when I see it. It doesn't take much investigation into the facts before one starts to wonder what she was thinking.It's interesting that Ms. Gaertner and other liberals only cite the EIA's analysis. Isn't it curious that Ms. Gaertner thinks that a group of government bureaucrats know more about commodity markets than do market experts? Why haven't they considered the possibility that the oil companies' experts might know more than a lifetime bureaucrat? Hasn't Ms. Gaertner considered the possibility that Wall Street experts might offer a different, more qualified opinion than a lifetime bureaucrat?
In March, the Bush Administration's Energy Information Administration issued a report that said even if ANWR was opened to drilling, it would be at least five years before the oil would begin flowing and 17 years before it could reach its peak flow. In addition, the EIA report said the projected amounts of oil produced from ANWR at peak would only reduce United States imports of oil by 4 percent and have little impact on the price of a barrel of oil.
What has Ms. Gaertner spotted that tells her that Rep. Bachmann is being deceptive? If she's basing that opinion on the EIA's report, isn't that flimsy analysis? Shouldn't she have considered more than just that perspective?
It wouldn't surprise me if this is just Ms. Gaertner repaying a political favor to Mr. Tinklenberg. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just Ms. Gaertner taking a shot at Rep. Bachmann. If it's just playing politics, that's fine. Like Rep. Bachmann likes to say, she can take it because she's got a "titanium spine." It'll take alot more than just a few unsubstantiated cheapshots like that to throw Rep. Bachmann off her stride.
Does it matter to Bachmann that Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and the GOP's presidential candidate Sen. John McCain oppose drilling in ANWR?I can't hold this one against Ms. Gaertner because it wasn't until this afternoon that Sen. McCain said that, though he didn't like the option of drilling in ANWR, he'd keep it on the table because of the high price of gas.
And what about the Texas oilman and billionaire Republican T. Boone Pickens who labeled his party's claim that we can drill our way to lower gas prices "totally misleading?"I wonder what Ms. Gaertner would say if she saw this video:
Here's the transcript of what Mr. Pickens said:
Offshore OCS drilling. ANWR drilling. Yes, all of it. I want to get off of foreign oil. Ok. McCain says ok off the east & west coast. I say east & west coast & ANWR. Get it all. I mean get off of foreign oil. That is the enemy. Get everything you can get. You cannnot drill your way out of it but you're drilling & whatever you do find & put into the domestic system will help us.I wonder what Ms. Gaertner's reaction to Mr. Pickens' statements would be. I'll bet she'd conclude her LTE would be different than this:
I take offense when a politician proposes a solution that is essentially a cruel hoax perpetrated on a constituency that is experiencing the agony of $4 gas and soon expecting further anguish when they have to turn on the heat this winter.Personally, Ms. Gaertner, I take offense when hired guns shoot their mouth off without doing the proper amount of research. I'm being charitable in saying that Ms. Gaertner's LTE is sloppily-researched. Mostly, it's just the environutters' talking points.
But, as I said, maybe she really believes it. But given the lack of facts to back up her claim, it seems reasonable to question how she can.
I'd suggest to the people at Mr. Tinklenberg's blog to research things better before hitching their wagons to such sloppily-written stuff.
UPDATE: Commenter Jeo left this important tidbit of information:
She [Ms. Gaertner] is the wife of Tinklenberg's press consultant, John Wodele. Can't believe you left that one out,that's more disturbing then leaving out whether or not she's one of 10 DFLers running for Governor 2+ years from now.Had I known that connection, I would've highlighted it. Thanks for the information.
Originally posted Monday, July 28, 2008, revised 29-Jul 8:09 AM
Comment 1 by Jeo at 29-Jul-08 08:03 AM
She is also the wife of Tinklenberg's press consultant, John Wodele. Can't believe you left that one out...that's more disturbing then leaving out whether or not she's one of 10 DFLers running for Governor 2+ years from now.
