June 10-11, 2010
Jun 10 03:08 Tarryl's Troubles Just Starting Jun 10 03:50 Fiorina vs. Boxer: Results vs. Rhetoric Jun 10 10:50 Angle vs. Reid: A Mismatch? Jun 10 12:17 I Wouldn't Want to be Jerry Brown Jun 10 15:10 Moron McDermott Highlights Failed Obamanomics Policies Jun 10 16:28 Unions Attack Whitman Jun 11 01:40 Shrum the Blind Ideologue Jun 11 02:17 Kelilher's Green Economy Jun 11 03:50 Salazar Must Go
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Tarryl's Troubles Just Starting
With Maureen Reed now out of the picture, Tarryl Clark is making all the right statements about going after Michele Bachmann. Making the right statements, though, won't change Taxin' Tarryl's image. This MPR article is a good analysis of the state of the race:
One of the last votes Clark took in the Legislature was to increase income taxes on wealthy Minnesotans. Clark was the deciding vote, and the voting board in the Senate was kept open for several minutes to give her a chance to vote.That's a cute little qualifier at the end of Tarryl's statement:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed that bill and Bachmann and other state Republicans took the opportunity to label Clark "Taxin Tarryl Clark."
A recent Bachmann radio ad that aired throughout the sixth district criticized Clark for her "vote to raise taxes with our economy on rocky grounds."
After filing her election papers late last month, Bachmann said she was proud to be a loud "no" voice in Washington. Noting Clark's vote to increase taxes, Bachmann said her philosophy, not Clark's, is in line with 6th district voters.
"The fact is that we're taxed enough already. That's what I've been working on for the last three or four years in Congress, it's what I continue to work for if I'm lucky enough to go back this fall," Bachmann said.
Clark defends her vote, saying that it would have ensured that 95 percent of Minnesotans would not have their taxes increased.
"When we have a recession and a budget that is so heavily out of whack...finding ways to actually pay for services is important," she said. "I have voted to cut a lot of services, and that has been a hard thing. I've also voted against tax bills when I thought it didn't make sense."
I've also voted against tax bills when I thought it didn't make sense."The good news for Tarryl's supporters is that she's never met a tax increase that didn't make sense. Of course, that's bad news for people that believe in fiscal sanity and limited government.
It's true that Tarryl has voted for cutting the budget. That's part of her record. What she hasn't done alot of, if at all, is reforming major budget items. She hasn't offered to co-author Steve Gottwalt's and David Hann's Healthy Minnesota Plan health care reform, which would save the state hundreds of millions of dollars each biennium, possibly because she'd prefer John Marty's single-payer option.
There isn't proof that Tarryl's gone through the various agencies or departments to see how many agencies are replicative and can be eliminated.
There certainly isn't proof that Tarryl's cast a vote that limits the scope of government in any meaningful way. Unfortunately, there's altogether too much proof that Tarryl's voted for legislation that extends government's reach into people's lives.
If there's anything that a majority of Sixth District voters appreciate, it's inexpensive, limited government that leaves it the hell alone. If there's anyone who embodies that message at the federal level better than Michele Bachmann, I wouldn't know who that is.
Tarryl should plan on being exposed as a tax-increasing spendaholic who's never met a meaningful reform. She'd better plan on being on the defensive most of the time, too.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: Tarryl isn't a good fit for the Sixth District's demographics. Those weaknesses weren't exposed in 2006 to a great extent. They will be in 2010.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:08 AM
No comments.
Fiorina vs. Boxer: Results vs. Rhetoric
This video of Carly Fiorina's interview with Greta van Susteren is extremely illuminating:
To me, there are 3 highlights to the interview, starting with Fiorina saying that, during her time as HP CEO, many things improved, including growing the company from $44,000,000,000 a year in revenues to $88,000,000,000 a year. Another highlight came when she said she'd run on her "record all day long", saying that this race essentially came down to her results vs. Sen. Boxer's rhetoric. Finally, when Greta asked if she'd debate Boxer, Fiorina's reply was a crisp "Anytime, anywhere." When Greta asked whether Greta could moderate it, Fiorina said she'd love that.
That's a debate I'd love watching because Greta is a great interviewer who ins't afraid of asking fair, tough questions, including followup questions.
Frankly, I think Sen. Boxer better be prepared to wage the best campaign of her life. If Sen. Boxer just decides to go negative to cut Fiorina down, she'd better plan on giving a concession speech the first Tuesday in November because Fiorina has the financial wherewithal to both criticize Sen. Boxer's lackluster record and to highlight Fiorina's pro-growth agenda.
One thing that I've thought from the beginning about Carly Fiorina is that she's got an engaging personality, something Sen. Boxer doesn't have. Frankly, during their years in the Senate, I don't know if Sen. Boxer was the most argumentative or cantankerous or if that honor went to Hillary.
If there's anything more lacking in Sen. Boxer's bio than accomplishments, it's her lack of a personality. That difference, I think, will be apparent the minute the two are compared with each other.
The other thing that makes this a difficult fight for Sen. Boxer is that California is ripe for a senator who's got a history of creating jobs and growing businesses. With California's unemployment above 12 percent, there's bound to be a thirst for a candidate with a vision for putting California on stable financial footing.
The thought that Sen. Boxer fits that job description is laughable. There's nothing in her bio that says she's anything more than a reliable liberal who's championed things like Cap and Trade and other items on the environmental extremists' wishlist, going so far as saying that global warming is a national security threat.
I know that Ms. Fiorina isn't a federalist or a down-the-line conservative but she's representing California, not me. I'm confident that she'll do a good job in writing legislation that helps create jobs.
More than anything else, that's the thing Sen. Boxer should worry most about.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:53 AM
Comment 1 by Estragon at 10-Jun-10 09:35 AM
One quibble: for all her haughtiness, it's not fair to compare Hillary to Boxer. At least Hillary is intelligent, if misguided on most issues. Boxer is not.
The woman is a blithering idiot. She is an embarrassment to her party, her state, and her sex. In fact, all sentient beings should feel degraded just knowing she exists.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Jun-10 09:41 AM
You'll notice that this wasn't a blanket statement, just a statement that both people didn't have personalities & are annoying to listen to.
Comment 2 by Chuck at 10-Jun-10 11:29 AM
Gary nails it in this one. I'm waiting for Fiorina at the beginning of a debate to tell Boxer "you can call me maam".
Angle vs. Reid: A Mismatch?
I've said consistently and confidently that Harry Reid's lackluster Senate career is in its final days . Thanks to Scott Rasmussen's polling , I now have more proof that I'm right:
Sharron Angle, following her come-from-behind Republican Primary win Tuesday, has bounced to an 11-point lead over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada's closely-watched U.S. Senate race.To be fair, Sharron Angle presented the best matchup on paper. Unfortunately for Sen. Reid, this election is being held in the real world.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada, taken Wednesday night, shows Angle earning 50% support while Reid picks up 39% of the vote. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
During Sen. Reid's campaign, he'll certainly emphasize his ability to 'bring home the bacon.' Angle's reply should be in question form, asking how all that DC pork has improved Nevadans' lives. If she takes that approach, she will have put herself in perfect position to ask why all that pork hasn't helped keep unemployment out of double digits in Nevada.
By taking that straightforward position, Ms. Angle will demolish Sen. Reid's entire argument for supporting him. If people see that all of Sen. Reid's pork hasn't improved their lives, that gives Nevadans additional justification for supporting Sharron Angle.
There's other things working against Sen. Reid, not the least of which is this being an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year. There's also his guiding a massively unpopular health care bill through the Senate. That's before talking about his unlikeability factor. The guy just isn't that likeable.
Then there's this information:
Despite their hotly-contested primary, Republicans already appear to be solidifying behind Angle who now earns 88% support among voters in her party. Reid draws 68% support from Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Angle by 10 points.Na na na na, na na na na, hay hay, goodbye. Get out the butter because Harry's toast. For a powerful senator to only get 2 of every 3 voters in his own party is a death knell. Add losing independents by a double digit margin and you've got a recipe for giving a concession speech this November.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:57 AM
Comment 1 by Gordon Gray at 13-Jun-10 10:34 AM
I'm wondering what name you'll be blogging under after Nov. Your bold prediction is fraught with the landmines that are Sharron Angle's extreme positions. Her 11 point Rasmussen lead over Reid is in the 8-11 point range it has been in since Mar. Once Reid and the media turn NV voters attention to Angle's weird views, you both will be looking for a soft place to crash land. I predict the excuses will be as follows:
1) SEIU thugs
2) Soros/Moveon.org
3) Obama's imported Chicago thugs
4) The Liberal Media
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jun-10 12:13 PM
I won't be crash-landing anywhere. When only 39-42 percent of Nevadans like you, which is where Reid's at, that's a sign that they don't like you.
I know that the desperate Democrats will try & make this a referendum on Sharron Angle. The problem is that Nevadans see this as a referendum on Harry Reid's extremist views, from his supporting Obamacare, which is wildly unpopular with Nevadans, to his predicting that "the war is lost" (that right before the Surge worked & the victory was won) or whether it's his belief that government produces wealth.
While there's no doubt that SEIU thugs, some of whom are facing charges & will be convicted, will try & change the outcome, they'll fail. Let's understand that, win or lose, the SEIU will be up to their dirty tricks. Let's just hope that their thugs will be caught & convicted.
Comment 2 by Sybil at 30-Jun-10 01:32 PM
Reid will win all right. Angle is so lame, that her comments alone will bury her. I'm pretty sure people in Nevada aren't that stupid - and few are more ignorant and totally unschooled on the massiveness of the issues than Sharron Angle.
You can't be as willfully blind as this author as to take this nitwit seriously as a prospective senator??! She's a laugh-out-loud ignoramic joke.
I Wouldn't Want to be Jerry Brown
This morning hasn't proven to be a great morning for the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign. It started with Scott Rasmussen's polling showing him starting the race with a tiny 1-point margin against Meg Whitman. That's bad enough but then he's got to deal with Whitman's opening ad:
Years ago, I remember reading Mel Kiper's assessment of former Chicago Bears star WR Willie Gault. His assessment was simple. If Gault was running even with the defensive back near the line of scrimmage, the race was essentially over because of Gault's world-class speed. If I recall correctly, I think his exact words were "If he's (Gault) even, he's leaving."
That's pretty much the situation that Jerry Brown finds himself in this afternoon. Meg Whitman is just starting to deploy her warchest and Brown's already pulling no better than a temporary stalemate.
Brown's in trouble if Whitman runs a mistake-free campaign. Even though he isn't the sitting governor, he's still seen as part of the political establishment. That's dangerous in a year when the political establishment isn't popular.
That's before talking about Brown starting with 45 percent even though he's got almost 100 percent name ID. Ms. Whitman has room to grow, Brown doesn't. What's worse is that Ms. Whitman is running during a cycle when voters are looking for leaders who will throw them a financial lifeline. That definitely isn't Brown's forte.
In California this year, the biggest issues are jobs, jobs and jobs. Politicians saying that the best way to create jobs is by investing in education won't connect with voters. While it's true that a well-educated workforce helps attract good-paying jobs, it's only true to the extent that taxes, regulations and unsustainable spending habits aren't driving businesses from California.
Jerry Brown's plan to rejuvenate California appears to be 'If we spend money we don't have on education, we'll be fine.' Overspending is what's gotten California into this mess and the people know it. If Brown wants to run on that platform, good luck.
The races I'll be paying the most attention to on the national level will be in the southwest. There could be a significant shift this year.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 10-Jun-10 08:17 PM
Yes, running as what could be conceived for Brown as an incumbent, the same old song is not what is needed in California, especially in this era of economics first. If California elects Brown, it is finished as a state. It will surely be a third world nation.
Moron McDermott Highlights Failed Obamanomics Policies
In arguing that unemployment benefits can't be cut, Jim McDermott admitted that Obamanomics is a failure .
LAST week, the Times editorial board called for a reduction of unemployment benefits, from their current level, in many states, including Washington, now 99 weeks, to 46 weeks ["It's time to reduce unemployment benefit," June 4]. This certainly isn't the first time I've heard this proposal, but I am disappointed to hear it from my hometown newspaper.Let's be blunt about this. The Democrats' policies haven't inspired sustainable job creation or economic growth because they weren't designed to inspire job growth. Since President Obama's inauguration, his administration and the Democratic Congress have painted bullseyes on small businesses' and large corporations' backs.
In a normal economy, with unemployment in the 4-to-5-percent range, most people qualify for 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. When the present deep recession hit in 2008 and millions of people lost their jobs, Congress responded to the heightened need for emergency assistance to jobless workers by increasing the level and duration of benefits available to them. I'm proud that as the chairman of the congressional subcommittee that oversees the unemployment insurance system, I authored and championed several pieces of legislation to extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks.
That's proof that this administration and this Democratic Congress are filled with anti-capitalists. I offer as proof those that want to kill the coal economies of West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Wyoming.
Let's remember President Obama telling bankers that he was the only thing standing between them and some pitchforks :
As first reported by Politico's Eamon Javers, and confirmed by ABC News with industry sources, some bankers gave explanations for the industry's high salaries, such as "competing for talent on an international market."The stimulus plan was the federal government going deep into debt to save state governments from cutting spending and restructuring government. In short, it was a payoff to the public employees unions like AFSCME and SEIU. That isn't how you grow economies. It's how you grow debt, inflation and unemployment.
But President Obama cut them off.
"My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks," the president told them.
Despite the Times cheery prediction that "next year there will be more jobs," most economists recognize that the unemployment rate in the United States is not going to plummet magically in the next several months. For millions of skilled, willing American workers who cannot find jobs, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program is a lifeline.It'll take more than time to get the economy creating new jobs. It takes policies that don't paint a bullseye on the job creators' chests. That won't happen with this wayward Democratic Congress and this wayward Democratic administration.
It requires a dramatic change of direction, one that embraces capitalism, fiscal responsibility, reforms and spending reductions. That won't happen with Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin as Senate Majority Leader or Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker. It won't happen with President Obama in the White House either but, unfortunately, we'll just have to wait on that for another 2 years.
Obamanomics has failed by every measurement. The absence of job creation, the feeble job growth, the exponential skyrocketing of the budget deficits and the uncertainty caused by Obamacare and not knowing if they'll pass Cap and Tax all have small businesses reluctant to hire people.
Until government gives them proof that they'll give small businesses an incentive to expand their businesses, unemployment will stay high and the economy will continue to sputter.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:16 PM
No comments.
Unions Attack Whitman
Predictably, it didn't take much time for the unions to attack Meg Whitman's first campaign ad . Equally predictably, their attack doesn't have any credibility when it comes to creating jobs since unions don't create jobs. Here's their statement:
Brown's allies in labor slammed the ad. Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation, called it "patently offensive" that Whitman, a billionaire, suggest that she understands working families' struggles.Since when did unions have a clue about creating jobs? Admittedly, they're great if you need a bunch of thugs . That said, they're pretty much worthless when it comes to knowing how to create jobs.
"Meg Whitman's life of wealth and privilege means she's never had to worry about losing her home, paying household bills or affording to put her kids through college," he said in a written statement. "We need real solutions to the jobs crisis, not slick soundbites that fit neatly into a 30-second TV ad. And we certainly don't need a billionaire telling our state's unemployed that she understands the 'human cost' of joblessness."]
While I'm sure Ms. Whitman doesn't know what it's like to live paycheck-to-paycheck, I'm equally certain that unions aren't part of the solution to creating jobs in a vibrant economy.
Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College and former GOP national official, agreed.Let the unions defend Jerry Brown all they want. Unions aren't held in high esteem outside of union halls. By defending Jerry Brown, they're tying him to public employee unions. These days, public employee unions are less popular in California than gas-guzzling SUVs.
"The lesson of the campaign so far is that an early start is better," he said. "Obviously, Jerry Brown needed to conserve his resources and didn't want to spend a lot too early, but the fall campaign has started. If I was advising the Democrats, I would tell them to get into gear."
Good luck selling that.
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:33 PM
No comments.
Shrum the Blind Ideologue
There's a reason why Bob Shrum has never managed a winning presidential campaign. He's a tone-deaf true believer. That's certainly apparent in his latest column , in which he states emphatically this:
Republicans had assumed they were harnessing the energy of the Tea Party movement. Instead, with the ABC-Washington Post poll now registering majority disapproval of the Tea Party, Republicans find themselves in an accelerating march of folly. As a result, they have diminished their moment and will capture fewer seats in 2010.Perhaps Mr. Shrum should've read Scott Rasmussen's polling before writing something as foolish as this:
In Nevada, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid saw his strongest potential opponent impale herself on the far right's opposition to health reform, proposing to "repeal and replace" it with a barter system of chickens for medical care. Instead, Republicans nominated Sharron Angle, who sounded less weird than Chicken Lady but who is, in fact, decidedly more extreme-determined to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Education just for starters. Angle's now whitewashing all that from her website, but Reid will hold her to it-and likely hold his Senate seat, which should have fallen to Republicans.
Sharron Angle, following her come-from-behind Republican Primary win Tuesday, has bounced to an 11-point lead over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada's closely-watched U.S. Senate race.As bad as those numbers are, these statistics will make any thoughtful campaign manager start writing a resignation letter:
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada, taken Wednesday night, shows Angle earning 50% support while Reid picks up 39% of the vote. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Despite their hotly-contested primary, Republicans already appear to be solidifying behind Angle who now earns 88% support among voters in her party. Reid draws 68% support from Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Angle by 10 points.The Senate Majority Leader only gets two-thirds of his own party in his own state to support him? That's political death. I've thought that it's kinda impossible to beat your opponent when your own party is abandoning you but that's just me. What do I know?
From Kentucky, where Senate nominee Rand Paul has pushed the GOP over the ideological edge, to California, where GOP voters pushed their newly minted nominee Carly Fiorina onto an ideological outcropping from which she almost certainly can't defeat Democrat Barbara Boxer, the party is squandering its best chances for November.I just watched Hannity interview Rand Paul. I can't say that I was immediately a Rand Paul fan but, after tonight's interview, I'm certain that Rand Paul will be an outstanding senator.
Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina will defeat Sen. Boxer because the three biggest issues facing Californians are jobs, jobs and jobs. Sen. Boxer's credentials in creating jobs are nonexistent. Sen. Boxer's only credentials on anything are in the area of global warming and 'reproductive rights'.
The last I looked, neither issue is skyrocketing to the top of California's voters priorities list.
On the other hand, Fiorina's understanding of free market principles and capitalism make her a natural choice for California voters, especially those voters in California's central valley where the water's been shut off because the federal government is protecting a minnow rather than helping farmers.
Anyone thinking that Sen. Boxer won't get pummeled in that part of the state is foolish. What's foolish, though, is this type of thinking:
Obama's real danger, and it was Carter's true weakness in 1980 as well, is a faltering economy. The recovery could stall or plunge into a double-dip recession. That's why the anemic job numbers for May drove the Dow down, and had to dismay even the most optimistic White House aides.What recovery? Yes, we had a couple reports say that our economy was expanding. Yes, we had a couple jobs reports that weren't negative. I didn't think that those statistics were proof that the economy was expanding, at least not without the government priming the pump with 10s of billions of dollars of printed money, aka debt.
That isn't a recovery, at least in the traditional sense. If you'd like to argue that it's a hopeful blip, I might be willing to agree with you. Anything beyond that, though, and I'll pass.
Bob Shrum should be applauded for being a loyal true believer for the past half century. He shouldn't be applauded, however, for his grasp of reality because it doesn't exist.
Posted Friday, June 11, 2010 1:47 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 11-Jun-10 10:20 AM
Shrum the Blind Ideologue written by Gross the Blind Ideologue. LOVE IT!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Jun-10 12:31 PM
Eric, let's get serious. Bob Shrum hasn't been right in years.
Kelilher's Green Economy
If anything can be said about Speaker Kelliher's economic plan, it's that it relies on an unrealistic amount of green energy growth :
"It's important to be focused on the sectors that make sense for Minnesota," Rep. Kelliher told KARE Wednesday, "And certainly clean and green energy is going to make sense for Minnesota, both in manufacturing and in being able to save people money."Targeted investments sounds alot like government picking winners and losers. It also sounds like the opposite of letting free markets fill the niches that people create through demand.
As Kelliher sees it targeted investments can do that and transform lives in the process. Her case in point is Casey MacCallum of Elko, who went from the ranks of the unemployed last November to become an energy auditor at a weatherization program.
I've said before what I'll say here: that governments aren't good at picking winners and losers. In fact, I'd argue that governments are worthless at picking winners and losers, leading to them subsidizing the beasts they've created. It certainly sounds like that's where Speaker Kelliher is going with this:
Democrat Margaret Kelliher sees a bright green recovery on the horizon in Minnesota, but she asserts government still has a role to play in that turn-around. That will be one of the themes when the House Speaker and gubernatorial hopeful launches her "No Stone Unturned Job Tour" Sunday.Somehow, I can't get thoughts of expensive subsidies to make green companies viable out of my head. I can't get thoughts of expensive energy out of my head either.
If industries can't attract capital, then they aren't likely to be profitable. Government grants to start businesses that likely won't be profitable doesn't seem like a wise investment of taxpayers' money, especially with Minnesota facing a $5,000,000,000 deficit this biennium.
According to Kelliher's gubernatorial website , she's also planning on doing something that she didn't do during her time as Speaker:
As governor, Margaret will prioritize the basic infrastructure that connects every part of our state; our roads, bridges, railways, and telecommunications. She is committed to ensuring Minnesota has a safe and efficient transportation system. She will work to expand and improve high speed internet access in rural areas, providing access to new markets and creating new business growth opportunities.Simply put, Speaker Kelliher never fought to prioritize spending. In fact, the only thing Speaker Kelliher prioritized was increasing spending. That isn't the same thing as prioritizing spending in the eyes of most Minnesotans. Then again, that isn't surprising.
Margaret believes we need to do everything possible to position Minnesota's economy for future success. We must give every child, from birth to pre-K to college, the opportunity for a great education. We must provide access to affordable, quality health care coverage for all Minnesotans, ensuring our workforce is healthy and productive. We must invest in a 21st Century infrastructure to support business as well as to unite our cities, suburbs, and rural areas. By doing all of these, we can bring the industries and jobs of the future to Minnesota.With all due respect, limiting government spending and improving Minnesota's business climate, then getting the hell out of the way, is the best way to get Minnesota's economy humming again.
Speaker Kelliher's economic plans, like her DFL and IP rivals, rely on tax increases to pay for unsustainable spending increases, which is why capital is leaving Minnesota. It's what's gotten us into this mess.
That certainly means it isn't the solution to Minnesota's economic woes. Then again, I wasn't expecting solutions from the DFL or IP candidates.
Posted Friday, June 11, 2010 2:17 AM
No comments.
Salazar Must Go
If this report is telling the truth, then it justifies President Obama firing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Here's what's being reported:
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium, something they actually oppose.Prior to this revelation, Salazar had been criticized as being ineffective in protecting Louisiana's coastal marshes. After this revelation, I can't see any justification for not firing him.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.
"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.Apologizing won't cut it. Secretary Salazar wrote a recommendation into a memo that these scientists signed, giving the impression that they recommended the offshore drilling moratorium. Salazar had the right to write his own recommendation. That wouldn't have had the impact that these scientists' recommendation had but at least it wouldn't have been deceptive.
"The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations," he said. "It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president's decision to move forward."
I suspect that Secretary Salazar wrote his own recommendation on the report signed by the scientists specifically because it would've had a greater likelihood of getting approved.
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.It's time for President Obama to fire Secretary Salazar. If he's intentionally doctoring an important report so it says what the experts didn't say, then his credibility and integrity are nonexistent. Why would anyone trust him again?
The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down, a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.
This type of deception isn't what good governance is about. It's time for him to go.
Posted Friday, June 11, 2010 3:55 AM
No comments.
