June 19-20, 2008
Jun 19 05:40 Maurice Hinchey: Gov't. Should OWN Refineries Jun 19 11:26 Obamas Employ Hillary Makeover Tactic Jun 19 12:04 Prosecution Turns Into Persecution Jun 19 13:52 Risk or Reward? Jun 19 16:11 Blogger Conference Call Jun 19 23:36 More Of Morris' Insights Jun 20 08:27 Dems' Definition of Congressional Oversight Jun 20 15:04 Franken on Energy
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Maurice Hinchey: Gov't. Should OWN Refineries
When I read Rep. Maurice Hinchey's quote , I was stunned. I wasn't surprised because he'd be ideal as Hugo Chavez's Oil Minister. Rather, I was stunned that he'd make his thoughts known in public. Here's Rep. Hinchey's quote:
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market. -- Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markupWe're going to trust a government bureaucrat to determine the proper flow of oil through refineries? I don't think so. That's the dumbest decision we could possibly make.
Predictably, Democrats are putting themselves on the wrong side of this issue. Here's a sampling of what Democrats said about increased drilling:
I think there aren't enough votes for the Peterson amendment. It wasn't taken up (the Interior spending bill) because of the omnibus Appropriations bill. That's the main focus of the Appropriations Committee. -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)Rep. Hinchey wants to nationalize oil refineries, Rep. Markey is parroting the talking points of his enviro-extremist allies while limiting oil production. Meanwhile, Rep. Rahall belittles drilling by suggesting that it's a simplistic plan.
They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach. -- Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Resources Committee
You cannot drill your way out of this. -- Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming
The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place. -- Markey
The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go. -- Hinchey
There are a lot of arrows in the President's quiver that he decided not use. -- Hinchey
What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations. -- Emanuel
NOTICE TO REP. RAHALL: Sometimes simple works when it's the right plan.
From a purely political front, I'm praying that Democrats maintain their obstructionist ways. If they do, they'll get soundly defeated this November.
Here's a creepy video of the Dem's call for nationalizing oil refineries:
Let's remember that this video is of an Obama supporter. Allahpundit notes "the creepiest moment":
Creepiest moment: "Maybe the government's taking it over because it never should have been private in the first place."Do we really trust government to run anything efficiently?
Everyone knows the old cliche that "Those who can, do. Those that can't, teach." I'd suggest that that cliche isn't complete until you add this: "Those who can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, govern." Voters need to ask themselves if they want people like Rep. Hinchey in power. Voters need to ask if they want Sen. Obama, who said that oil isn't too expensive, it just got to $4 a gallon too fast, setting energy policy.
Most importantly, we must ask ourselves if we want a party in power that hates fossil fuels in charge of energy policy. Let's remember how totally Democrats have bought into Al Gore's myth about MMGW. Let's remember that Nancy Pelosi has bought into the myth of the ocean rising 20+ feet if we continue with our current policies.
Most importantly, let's remember that Senate Democrats filibustered any energy legislation that included the ecofriendly harvest of domestic oil, whether that was in ANWR, or the OCS.
With gas sitting north of $4 a gallon, we literally can't afford the Democrats' policies.
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:41 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Jun-08 09:56 AM
Hey, that's a good idea! Have government take over ALL the energy industries, so we could be more like the Communist Chinese. Heck, we might even be smart enough to build a new coal-fired power plant every 3 days.
Obamas Employ Hillary Makeover Tactic
In 1992, Hillary said something that could've derailed her husband's presidential ambitions. Here's Hillary's now-famous quote:
"You know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life."What happened after that was the Clinton campaign stuck a proverbial sock in Hillary's mouth. The next time we heard from her, she was talking about cookie recipes and talking every bit like the stay-at-home-mom she talked down earlier.
Let's fastforward to this campaign and shift our focus to Michelle Obama. She's said that "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." She's told New Yorker Magazine that America is "downright mean", that we're "guided by fear."
The Clinton campaign realized immediately that they had a problem and hid Hillary so she didn't derail his presidential ambitions. The Obama campaign let Michelle shoot her mouth off. Now she's attempting a Hillaryesque makeover and the NY Times is assisting:
Michelle Obama's eyes flicker tentatively even as she offers a trained smile. As her campaign plane arcs over the Flathead Range in Montana, she is asked to consider her complicated public image.Mrs. Obama is asked to explain her "complicated public image"? What's complicated about it? She's an elitist snob with alot of submerged hate that she hasn't dealt with. Not to worry, though. That's in the past as far as the NY Times is concerned. The makeover that she's undergoing is "subtle", the NY Times says. My question for the spinmeisters at the NY Times is simple: what is their definition of substantial?
Conservative columnists accuse her of being unpatriotic and say she simmers with undigested racial anger. A blogger who supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton circulates unfounded claims that Mrs. Obama gave an accusatory speech in her church about the sins of "whitey." Mrs. Obama shakes her head.
"You are amazed sometimes at how deep the lies can be," she says in an interview. Referring to a character in a 1970s sitcom, she adds: "I mean, 'whitey'? That's something that George Jefferson would say. Anyone who says that doesn't know me. They don't know the life I've lived. They don't know anything about me."
Now her husband's presidential campaign is giving her image a subtle makeover, with a new speech in the works to emphasize her humble roots and a tough new chief of staff. On Wednesday, Mrs. Obama will do a guest turn on "The View," the daytime talk show on ABC, with an eye toward softening her reputation.
Yes, Michelle Obama came from humble beginnings but that doesn't mean that she isn't an America-hating elitist. Her attendance at TUCC says as much about Michelle's beliefs as it does about Barack's.
This makeover likely won't work with blue collar workers. This will draw rave reviews from the people who already plan on voting for Sen. Obama but that's about it. The McCain campaign won't touch this stuff. They're best off focusing on the biggest issues of the day.
This is where the blogosphere and the 527's will be important. The blogosphere will remind people of Michelle Obama's statements. The 527's will run advertisements of her statements, too, thereby reinforcing the elitist image of the Obamas.
For all their spin, a NY Times makeover can't erase Michelle Obama's elitist statements.
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:27 AM
No comments.
Prosecution Turns Into Persecution
Yesterday afternoon, the military filed its appeal of Col. Steven Folsom's ruling that charges be dropped against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani. The specific charges being refiled against Col. Chessani are violation of a lawful general order and dereliction of duty. This morning, the Thomas More Law Center issued a statement critical of the military's decision. Here's what it says:
Late yesterday afternoon, military prosecutors filed an official notice that they are appealing the June 17th decision of Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, which dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. Prosecutors have 20 days in which to file their appeal brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C.This is disgusting behavior on the military's behalf. How can this go forward, especially considering LtCol. Chessani's Combat Fitness Report applauds him for his qualities during the timeframe in which the Haditha firefight happened? Here's what LtCol. Chessani's CFR says in part:
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted with outrage, "This case has turned into the persecution of one of the Marine's finest combat commanders. LtCol Chessani devoted his life to the Corps and his Nation. He served three tours of duty in Iraq, away from his wife and children in defense of us all. In their attempt 'to get' Chessani, prosecutors granted immunity to seventeen Marines, including one they had charged with murder. Still they failed. Sadly, in the process they have destroyed the career of an outstanding officer. Enough is enough."
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents LtCol Chessani alongside his detailed military attorneys.
LtCol Chessani's official 2006 Combat Fitness Report, which includes the time frame in which he is facing criminal charges, declared him "a superb leader, who knows his men, knows the enemy, knows his business," and recommended him for promotion. The reviewing Major General added, Lt. Colonel Chessani has "unlimited potential and value to the Marine Corps," and also recommended him for promotion.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
- "Leads Marines from front in every operation. Demonstrates moral courage every day."
- "Doesn't hesitate to report bad news fast or contest unrealistic plans/poor concepts. Despite the complexity and size of his AO [area of operations], he always maintains a calm, cool demeanor."
- "Gets the job done to an exceedingly high standard."
I'm also keenly interested in hearing how they'll explain away the gaping discrepancy between his CO's statements on his CFR and the charges filed against him. How can someone be of a "calm, cool demeanor", which declares him "a superb leader and which recommends him for promotion while being guilty of derelict in his duties?
That's the daunting task that the prosecution faces. They have to convince the tribunal that LtCol. Chessani is a brilliant officer guilty of being sloppy and disobeying orders. Essentially, the prosecution is asking the tribunal to ignore LtCol. Chessani's career achievements and believe unsubstantiated allegations.
That isn't an uphill fight. That's a task equivalent of climbing Mt. Everest in your shorts on a cold, cold day.
It'll be interesting to see if the chargees will be reinstated. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't granted. Regardless, an investigation into military investigations must follow the minute these trials are complete.
Anything less than a thorough and independant investigation into these investigations is unacceptable.
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 07-Aug-08 10:18 AM
Polemics are good. Facts are better.
What happened?
Was it a brutal massacre?
At least, report, please what the dismissed charge claimed?
Risk or Reward?
After reading the opening paragraph to this article , you'd think that drilling off Florida's coasts would cost Sen. McCain Florida. I suspect that that's the intent of the opening. Here's what Lesley Clark, Mary Ellen Klas and Beth Reinhard wrote in the opening paragraph:
John McCain's support for offshore drilling could hurt his prospects in the nation's largest battleground state, where voters have long favored safeguarding the economically and environmentally precious coastline.The trick is to not dwell too long on the opening paragraph. The trick is to get into the meat of the article. That's where you'll find quotes like this:
"There is a certain political danger for McCain," said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker. But he added, "The question becomes: With gas at $4 a gallon, have people's minds changed? My best guess is that more people today are willing to support offshore drilling with heavy restrictions than a couple a years ago."Everybody and their mothers know that $4 a gallon gas trumps all other considerations at this point. The ecomomy can't take this much longer. The American people know this. That's why polling I've seen shows a dramatic shift. One poll shows that people feel less hostility towards the big oil companies than before, dropping from 34% to 20%. That same poll shows support for drilling on the OCS at 57% as favoring it to 41% opposing it.
Naturally, Democrats attacked Sen. McCain as a flip-flopper:
Democrats moved rapidly to assail McCain as a flip-flopper on drilling and to innoculate themselves against Bush's accusation that they are obstructing efforts to lower gas prices.That's the type of hyperbole you'd expect from liberals. It's the type of gibberish that voters are cutting through. I'd bet that voters won't care if Sen. McCain flip-flopped on this issue as long as prices start dropping.
All nine Florida Democrats in Congress issued a statement calling it a "political gimmick that will not lower gas prices for consumers but could have real and tragic consequences for Florida's economy and natural environment."
In a call with reporters arranged by Obama's campaign, former Gov. Bob Graham said, "In my state, where two-thirds of the members of Congress are Republican, there has been strong support for the principle that our coastline should be protected. John McCain was part of that coalition until yesterday."
Hugh points out here that voters know better than to believe the Democrats' gibberish:
Voters understand this issue. They know that scarcity is behind the high prices, not oil company perfidy. Democrats are banking on the voters' collective ignorance of supply and demand, but voters know.I totally agree with Hugh. In addition, I'd suggest that voters know that Democrats are wedded to the environmental extremists, which means that they hate anything to do with fossil fuels.
The GOP has the perfect opportunity to wage an important battle on a clear ideological divide between the Misery-R-Us Democrats and the belief in markets and the vast potential of American technology. They should do so every day.
Crude oil is sold on the futures market. That means that if they're told that we're increasing oil exploration and production, future contracts will sell for lower prices. That's a guarantee. The Democrats' assertions that drilling on the OCS and in ANWR would only lower prices marginally is absurd. I don't think that the environmental extremists believe that. Their paranoid rantings about destroying the environment are absurd, too, especially considering the fact that Katrina didn't produce any environmental damage that was related to the oil rigs in the Gulf. If those rigs can withstand Katrina, they can withstand anything.
The big news coming after the Democrats' statement was that Jeb Bush jumped into the fray:
In a rare public statement, former Gov. Jeb Bush offered a compromise via e-mail: End the moratorium but secure Florida's coast with a permanent buffer, like the one he negotiated but Congress abandoned in 2006.From what I'm told, most of the rigs in the Gulf would be 200 miles out from shore. That's certainly a big enough buffer.
"I support the president's continued advocacy to develop domestic sources of oil and gas with a sense of urgency," Bush said. "I would encourage Congress to reconsider the common sense plan that Congressman Pombo and I worked on in 2006. The proposal would have provided a 100 mile buffer of permanent protection around the state from Jacksonville to Pensacola and, at the same time, would have opened up millions of acres in the energy rich Central Gulf for new exploration."
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:53 PM
No comments.
Blogger Conference Call
I just finished participating in a blogger conference call on energy policy. The conference call was hosted by Rep. Michele Bachmann and was attended by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Rep. Tom Price, and Rep. Adam Putnam. Here's a brief summary of what each of these representatives said in their opening statements:
Marsha Blackburn: What we are faced with is a classic supply-demand situation, windfall profits tax didn't work. Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling, saying that it'd be "10 years before we see any production."Several representatives spoke to the differences between McCain and Obama, which I thought was fair game. My representative, Michele Bachmann, is collecting gas receipts and will deliver them to Speaker Pelosi's door, telling her that real people are hurting because of high gas prices. Michele also talked about the Cap and Tax Bill that got defeated in the Senate. Her nickname for the bill was the Cap and Spend bill, which I thought was appropriate, too. (I still prefer my nickname better, though.)
Adam Putnam: "These are our solutions" "We're committed to an all of the above approach" on energy.
Tom Price: High gas price is #1 issue in northern Atlanta. "We need to incentive conservation." "We need to increase oil production." "I'm sure that Speaker Pelosi's constituents aren't interested in paying $4.68 a gallon."
Phil Gingrey: DOD will see a $9 billion increase in fuel expense." They installed a provision in the DOD bill that mandated the buying certain type of crude oil, essentially eliminating Canadian oil & shale oil.
Eric Cantor: "We're opening up democracy" by including bloggers, who are driving this conversation. Speculative markets are looking at how we're dealing with supply. Currently, that's driving prices up. "Barack Obama recently said that" the only problem with $4 gas is that it went up too fast.
One thing that I'm certain of is that this converstaion won't disappear before Election Day. Democrats want to do anything they can to avoid having this debate but it ain't going away because the blogosphere won't let it disappear. As Rep. Cantor said, bloggers are driving this conversation. He noted in one of his responses that he gets emails all the time from people saying that they read something about the gas crisis on the blogs. Based on what I heard today, it's obvious that House Republicans will push this issue hard, too.
This is such a clear winner for the GOP that Dick Morris wrote this about the issue :
With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain's argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.I've never been convinced that voters bought into the notion of manmade global warming. Now that gas has reached this price, few people think that 'the environment' is a big enough concern to prevent oil companies from oil exploration on the OCS.
While it's true that McCain still doesn't support drilling in ANWR, most voters and bloggers understand that opening up the OCS and parts of the Mountain West for shale oil exploration is enough to drive prices down in the near future.
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment 1 by Howard at 19-Jun-08 06:25 PM
It would be great to have a true conservative who appreciates the internet as McCain's Vice President. Join the movement at
www.ericcantorforvp.com
More Of Morris' Insights
This column by Dick Morris is quite harsh on Sen. Obama. Here's another Morris observation of Sen. Obama regarding energy:
Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies .That's pretty harsh if you ask me. It's also accurate in my opinion. If Democrats want to see gas prices drop, then they'll need to either increase production or do alot more conservation than is happening now. I don't think the Democrats 'wear more sweaters plan' will play well with American voters. Here's another instance in which Morris nails Democrats hard:
The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies, a step that tells them "you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits." But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power.TRANSLATION: We stand on the opposite side of the American people because it's more important to push the environmental extremists' agenda than to make life affordable for working people.
This should be the voters' response:
Screw the environmental extremists' agenda. We need cheaper gas ASAP. If youBTW, Rep. Hinchey must've gotten lectured pretty good. He's now saying his statement about nationalizing oil refineries was simply meant to "put national pressure" on oil refineries. What part of this statement suggests that he was just pressuring oil companies:
won't get it done, we'll vote for the Republican that will get it done.
"Our Republican friends also talk about the need to set up ways in which the material can be refined, refineries. Well, do we own refineries? No. The oil companies own refineries. Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. "Frankly, I think that's a good idea."Rep. Hinchey is lying through his teeth. He wasn't trying to drum up national pressure on oil companies when he said that. He was letting his inner socialist out. He was letting his true feelings be known.
Let's remember that Rep. Hinchey is as far out there as any of the bombthrowing loons of the extremist left. Let's remember that Maxine Waters threatened John Hofmeister during the House hearings on energy:
"This liberal will be all about socializing,[long, awkward pause],will be about,basically taking over and basically running your companies."The more they talk, the more votes they lose for this November's election. It's time to give them a bigger megaphone.
Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:37 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 20-Jun-08 08:47 AM
Gary here's a way we can make a point about how much less driving is needed for conversation as per the democrats. They announced over the last six months Americans have driven 30 billion miles less. sounds like a lot, but after you assume 20 miles to the gallon average and 40 gallons of gasoline per barrell that is a savings of just 37.5 million barrells of oil. To compare with ANWAR 10.27% of the yearly production of ANWAR. So much for the conversation idea unless we do a whole lot more walking (possible in the summer in Minnesota if it's not raining, but how do you do it in winter when it's bellow zero)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dems' Definition of Congressional Oversight
In 2006, Democrats talked long and hard about holding congressional oversight hearings into the Bush administration, which they faithfully held. Most of these hearings were fishing expleditions trying to dig up dirt on the Bush administration. None of the witch hunts turned up anything, which was predicted. Now that a real scandal has arisen, though, Democrats have forgotten about oversight hearings. Apparently, the only time Democrats hold oversight hearings is when (a) there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing and (b) when it involves a Republican.
Apparently, oversight hearings aren't meant for real scandals with real evidence involving Democrats.
Now that there's evidence that Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, got the V.I.P. treatment from Countrywide, the thought of holding oversight hearings is the furthest thing from the Democrats' minds. The good news is that House Republicans, led by Jeb Hensarling and Minority Leader Boehner, are demanding that an investigation be launched into this scandal:
House Republicans further intensified their rhetoric on the Countrywide VIP situation Thursday night as House Minority Leader John Boehner's office called Democratic leaders hypocrites who are "thumbing their noses at calls for oversight hearings."Everyone knew that Nancy Pelosi didn't take reform seriously because it's never been a priority of hers prior to her becoming Speaker. Saying that she was going to drain Washington's swamp was just said to retake the majority. I said then that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
In a press release, Boehner's press office says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders demanded hearings on the Enron and WorldCom scandals, which the Republican-led Congress did.
"Under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who once ironically pledged to 'drain the swamp' in Washington, the House has stood flatfooted as scandals have erupted involving the trial lawyer industry and possible sweetheart deals between senior Democrats and mortgage lending giant Countrywide," the release says.
Not only are they pouncing on Ms. Pelosi's lack of zeal to investigate real scandal, the House GOP leadership is also going after the senior Democratic leadership:
"Now settled into their majority, senior congressional Democrats have lost all traces of the investigatory zeal they demonstrated during the dark days of Enron and WorldCom. Instead they're thumbing their noses at calls for oversight hearings on industry scandals involving the trial lawyer industry and Countrywide," the Boehner release says.Rest assured that the NRCC will run tons of ads this fall talking about the Countrywide scandal and the Democratic Culture of Corruption.
Jack Abramoff was a relatively big scandal but it'll look tiny when this Countrywide scandal is done being investigated. That's because the Abramoff was closed within the Beltway loop. People will relate more to this scandal because alot of people are experiencing troubles with their mortgages. They'll be upset that Washington insiders get preferential treatment while the lose their share of the American Dream.
Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 11:14 AM
No comments.
Franken on Energy
Listening to Al Franken talk about energy is like listening to any other Democrat on energy. Wind them up, then listen to them spew the same nonsense. Earlier this week, Don Shelby interviewed Franken on Shelby's WCCO radio program. Here's a noteworthy exchange:
Shelby: Okay. Now let's talk a little bit about energy. The President of the United States now has reversed himself in saying that $4 a gallon gasoline ought to be incentive enough to go and reverse himself on his policy against allowing offshore drilling in the OCS, the outer continental shelf. The Democratic presidential nominee says no, he still doesn't like that. Do you think that there is anything in that policy that would bring the price of gasoline down below $4 if we allowed that?My first question for Mr. Franken would be why he thinks increasing production wouldn't drop prices much, especially considering the effect the Saudi announcement that they were increasing their oil production by 300K barrels a day has dropped gas prices by a dime a gallon already. Imagine what would happen if we increased production by 2+ million barrels/day instead of just 300K barrels/day. Wouldn't that have a significant impact on a gallon of gas?
Franken: I very much doubt it. I'd certainly like to see what the environmental, the potential environmental impact of something of that would be. And I imagine that's why we haven't been doing it. You know, this administration basically blew it about 7 and a half years ago when it immediately said we're gonna withdraw from Kyoto, we're going to not regulate CO2 as he said he would do during the campaign. And they suppressed science on global warming. We should've been years and years ago now remember the Republicans have controlled Congress since 95 and um we should've been raising fuel efficiency standards. We should've been anticipating this. And there's been a tremendous opportunity cost in not addressing this earlier. Japan now is leading the world in solar, we should be. Denmark in wind, we should be. The wind turbines we get, the business end of them
Franken's answer is more diatribe than policy. Notice this accusation:
And they suppressed science on global warming.I'd be interested in hearing what Mr. Franken is basing his accusation on. Is his opinion based on verifiable proof? Is Mr. Franken's accusation based on his dislike of Republicans?
I'd further suggest that the alternative energy products that Mr. Franken rattled off are things that Sen. Coleman supports, too. In other words, the biggest difference between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken is beholden to the environmental extremists whereas Sen. Coleman prefers an 'all of the above' strategy of reaching energy independence.
Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation writes that "Good energy policy is easy to distinguish from bad energy policy: Good policy leads to more supplies of affordable energy and bad policy leads to less." That makes sense to most Americans because they understand the principles behind supply and demand.
Based on Franken's answer, it's obvious his policy fails that test miserably. While it's true we want to conserve, it's equally true that we should increase energy production, too.
Franken touts himself as a wonk but I haven't seen proof of it. Franken is proof that looking like a nerd doesn't mean you're a wonk.
Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Jun-08 10:38 PM
If "they suppressed science on global warming," how did HE find out about it? And if he DID find out about it, what science is it that was suppressed? Trot it out here and let us examine it, or are you just making idle blather, like a comedy routine? Are we, in fact, to believe ANYTHING you say or is it all a joke?
