June 23-25, 2008
Jun 23 01:44 Tinklenberg Momentum Building? Jun 23 02:32 Another Attack Dog Destined for Utter Annihilation Jun 23 11:54 Putting These Clowns In Charge Of Media Reform? Jun 23 14:15 Where's the Proof, Rep. Walz??? Jun 24 06:42 What If It's the Message? Jun 24 07:20 Who Are These Mysterious "GOP Strategists"? Jun 24 12:08 Big Oil Isn't the Big Problem Jun 25 07:49 Gov. Palin Chastizes Harry Reid Jun 25 11:08 Feingold's FISA Flip-Flop-Flip
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Tinklenberg Momentum Building?
The Tinklenberg08 blog would have you believe that there's this huge groundswell of support for El Tinklenberg. Here's how they're trumpeting their newfound momentum:
We've compiled a digest of coverage from local news and blogs.From the Strib:
From WCCO:
Tinklenberg is positioning himself as more moderate than the conservative Bachmann and trying to win over middle-of-the-road voters.
"What this says about our campaign is that we are trying to do what we talk about, and that is to build through addition rather than division," said Tinklenberg, who worked as transportation commissioner under former Gov. Jesse Ventura, who won office as a third-party candidate.
"It happens from time to time," he said. "We tend to want to support good candidates and Tinklenberg was much more in line with our platform and beliefs than the Republican."From the Pi-Press:
"As important as all the issues are, it's equally important that we find ways of coming together and getting things done," Tinklenberg said after he received the endorsement. "That's what this endorsement conveys."This is Tinklenberg's big momentum push? The IP endorses someone that their endorsed Senate candidate doesn't enthusiastically support and that's supposedly the parties coming together? Please.
Also Saturday, the IP endorsed Stephen Williams, a farmer from Austin, Minn., to run for the U.S. Senate. At first, Williams opposed cross-endorsing Tinklenberg. He said the Independence Party should have a representative of its own in the race. "I would much rather have a candidate who would walk in a parade with me," Williams said.
But by a show of hands, the majority of the IP convention chose to endorse Tinklenberg.
What's also laughable is that the IP portrays itself as a bunch of moderates. It's nothing of the sort. It's the home of liberals who've failed in DFL politics. In this respect, the IP is the perfect home for Tinklenberg. He talks moderate and acts outside-the-mainstream liberal.
Whatever minimal impact this has on Mr. Tinklenberg's momentum, it'll quickly disappear when I remind people that Mr. Tinklenberg did nothing when HNTB told him to replace the gusset plates on the I-35 Bridge.
That's before I start talking about Tinklenberg's overture to the MoveOn.org extremists by promising to vote for impeachment before articles of impeachment were even debated.
Does that sound like a moderate to you? Personally, it sounds more like a pawn or a panderer than principled politician to me.
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 1:44 AM
No comments.
Another Attack Dog Destined for Utter Annihilation
We're already seeing the Franken camp's plan for victory. It's apparent that Franken will go negative. I realize that that isn't news. It isn't news that they'll use the Bush-Cheney card, either. That's why this SC Times editorial from SD-14 chair Buzz Snyder is easy fisking. Look at this opening spin:
Senate Republicans are doing more than their part to assure that public approval of the Congress does not rise above 20 percent.In Mr. Snyder's world, Republicans are to blame for preventing Democrats from getting virtuous things done. That's spin so bad, it'd make a Clinton flinch. What's funny is Mr. Snyder's proof:
Last week, in again blocking advancement of legislation to help the American people, they have cemented their new GOP moniker: Graveyard Of Progress. And our own Norm Coleman is pitching inasmuch as calculations of his own political survival will allow.
Republicans excused Senator Coleman (and two other incumbents in tough re-election contests) from joining them in blocking a vote on S-3044, a bill to provide energy price relief to Americans and hold oil companies accountable for their price-gouging actions regarding skyrocketing energy prices.I decided to check which bill that was. Here's what I found :
5/20/2008--Introduced.The most fitting irony is the legislation's title:
Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) deny major integrated oil companies (i.e., companies producing at least 500,000 barrels of crude oil daily) a tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or primary products thereof; (2) conform tax treatment of foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil related income for purposes of the foreign tax credit; (3) impose a windfall profits tax on major integrated oil companies ; and (4) establish an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund funded by revenues raised by the tax provisions of this Act to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign and unsustainable energy sources and reduce the risks of global warming.
Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act - Declares it unlawful for a supplier to sell crude oil, gasoline, petroleum distillates, or biofuel at an unconscionably excessive price in an area for which the President declares that an energy emergency exists. Grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce this Act.
Authorizes the President to declare a federal energy emergency if the well-being of U.S. citizens is at risk because of a shortage or imminent shortage of adequate supplies of crude oil, gasoline, petroleum distillates, or biofuel because of: (1) a disruption in the national distribution system; or (2) significant pricing anomalies in the national energy markets for such products.
Authorizes state attorneys general to bring civil actions to enforce this Act. Sets forth civil and criminal penalties for violations.
S. 3044: Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008The legislation does nothing to increase energy production. It doesn't lower gas prices. In fact, they're inflating the price of a gallon of gas because it's driving up production costs. This is what Mr. Snyder wants us to believe is Sen. Coleman's egregious sin against Minnesota? I think not. Mr. Snyder should, but won't, be ashamed of himself for peddling this spin. It's condescending and insulting to the thoughtful people of Minnesota.
Granted, slapping a windfalls profits tax on 'Big Oil' will give some airhead liberals some momentary jollies but it won't ease the pain at the pump. That's because the dirty little secret that Mr. Snyder is trying to hide is that Democrats have hated oil production for a generation. Mr. Snyder knows that if he said that outright, Al Franken would get his head handed to him this November. That's why Al Franken and his mouthpieces resort to spin when the subject is energy policy.
Here's more of Mr. Snyder's spin:
It is no surprise that Coleman wants to talk only about Al Franken's satirical writings from a decade ago.Let's put this in perspective. Sen. Coleman doesn't want to talk about his record. He only wants to talk about Franken's disgusting writings. (No, I won't call them satire. I can't even call them humor.) I guess Mr. Snyder means that Sen. Coleman doesn't want to highlight the fact that he got an important hospital built in Walker because that's too small bore of stuff to be proud of. I suppose Mr. Snyder thinks that Sen. Coleman wants to run away from the legislation he just introduced on increasing energy production that increases oil exploration and that advocates building nuclear power plants .
No editorial would be complete without this line:
With his record as the Bush/Cheney senator from Minnesota, that is the only strategy available.This is what happens when you send an amateur to do a man's job. It's also what happens when you have to shill for a candidate like Al Franken. I just hope that Mr. Snyder doesn't quit his day job because I'd hate to think of him making a living shilling for Al Franken.
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 1:50 PM
Comment 1 by Ben K at 23-Jun-08 03:12 PM
I am liking Coleman's chances more and more every day
Putting These Clowns In Charge Of Media Reform?
This post on popmatters.com is one of the most laughable things I've ever read.
Bill O'Reilly recently focused his ire on Minneapolis, where more than 3,000 people gathered last weekend for the National Conference for Media Reform, a group the Fox News personality called "real nuts."Arianna Huffington, Dan Rather and Phil Donahue are luminaries who should help upgrade journalism? That trio wouldn't know good journalism if it bit their backsides.
Real angry is more like it.
The convention, which drew such luminaries as Arianna Huffington, Dan Rather and Phil Donahue, should have been an exchange of thoughts on how to upgrade journalism in all shapes and sizes. And while those conversations did occur, they were too often drowned out by voices dead set on overturning Rupert Murdoch, George Bush and anyone else who wears a suit to work.
Dan Rather got run out of journalism because he let his hatred of President Bush affect his judgment on the Rathergate (remember fake but accurate?). Arianna Huffington's blog is a vile hate site that's posted that Tony Snow should die in response to the news that Tony's cancer had reared its ugly head again. Phil Donahue isn't a journalist. He's a former whiny talk show host who hasn't done real news in the last 3 decades.
There is one thing in the article with which I can't argue:
"Corporate media is not a watchdog. It's a lapdog begging for scraps," said Free Press executive director Josh Silver, who pointed out that TV news operations used retired military officers as commentators for war coverage, many of them coached by the administration, it turns out. What Silver didn't point out is that revelation came from a mainstream powerhouse called the New York Times.The New Media, ranging from Politico.com to Instapundit to Michael Yon and Bill Roggio to Rush Limbaugh, are the watchdogs. Every day, the New Media uncovers news stories that the corporate media attempted to bury. That's who's becoming the driving force behind the news.
They're the driving force behind journalistic excellence.
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 11:55 AM
No comments.
Where's the Proof, Rep. Walz???
Last week, Rep. Tim Walz came out against expanding oil exploration . That isn't shocking in the least bit. What it is, though, is proof that Rep. Walz consistently buys into the liberal line. that's why MN-1 needs to retire him this November.
U.S. Rep. Tim Walz said President Bush's efforts to pressure Congress to lift a federal ban on some offshore oil drilling would do nothing to move the United States in the direction of a sensible energy policy or substantially lower gas prices.First of all, what proof is Rep. Walz using in saying that increasing oil production won't affect gas prices at the pump? Is he basing his opinion on market principles or is he basing this off the talking points the Environmental lobby has given him to speak from?
Calling the issue a red herring, the first-term Democrat also said he was prepared to call oil companies' bluff. He said federal law should be changed to penalize oil companies for not using the leases they already have.
Federal law already stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease. The legislation Walz supports would deprive oil companies of the ability to lease new federal offshore areas until they've drilled on all their existing leases, an aide said.
"This idea, this red herring, that all of a sudden you're going to drill and everything is going to be better, as if the market fundamentals are at work here, that's not happening," Walz said. "These are the same people that are (getting) $40 billion in profit."
One thing that I know is that his opinion isn't based on this study :
These restrictions effectively banned new offshore energy production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts of offshore Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Recent DOI estimates put the amount of energy in these off-limits areas at 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, approximately 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years . It should also be noted that these initial estimates tend to be low.Is Rep. Walz willing to argue that tapping into the equivalent of 30 years worth of imported Saudi oil and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years won't have a serious impact on home heating and gas prices? If he's willing to argue against this study, then that's grounds for questioning his objectivity and his competence to serve Minnesota's First District. Minnesota's First District can't afford that type of irresponsible behavior from its representative. No legislative district should be forced to suffer through such irresponsible behavior.
OCS restrictions are a relic of the past. They were put in place at a time when energy was cheap, the need for additional domestic supplies was not seen as dire, and the political path of least resistance was to give in to environmentalists. All that has changed, with more than a quadrupling of oil and natural gas prices since the restrictions were first imposed. Extra energy is badly needed, and the risk of producing it has been reduced. All new drilling would be subject to strict safeguards and would require state-of-the-art technology with a proven track record for limiting the risk of spills.
Conclusion
The President can bring America one step closer to accessing promising sources of domestic oil and natural gas for decades to come. He should lift the existing executive moratorium against OCS exploration. More important, Congress must show the nation that it is serious about meeting our energy needs by supporting the production of American energy from American waters.
This is why policies matter. That's why voters do themselves a disservice in not vetting the candidates enough on the issues. Tim Walz never was qualified to represent anyone in the Unite States House of Representatives. The proof is in how uninformed he is and irresponsibly he's acting on the most important issue of this election cycle.
Fortunately, the First District has a choice this time because Brian Davis takes this issue seriously:
Davis said gas prices might not automatically drop if the country drills for more oil domestically. But they almost certainly will go up if the country does nothing to further develop its domestic oil reserves, he maintains.Residents of Minnesota's first district owe it to themselves and to each other whether they want someone who believes in capitalism or if they want someone who doesn't understand or is ambivalent towards capitalism.
"I repeatedly hear from Congressman Walz that markets fail. He has an adversarial relationship, it appears, with corporate America. It doesn't seem as if he understands the free market and supply and demand," Davis said.
I seriously doubt that people think highly of a legisltor who is indifferent to the principles of capitalism. That means there's only one real choice. That means voting for Brian Davis.
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 24-Jun-08 10:03 AM
Shocking! Walz isn't basing his opinion on a study from the Heritage Foundation, an organization dedicated to manipulating the data any way possible until it "supports" misguided conservative policies.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-08 10:51 AM
Mr. Rosenberg, What's your proof that Heritage is "dedicated to manipulating the data any way possible until it "supports" misguided conservative policies"? Until you show documented proof that supports your claims, I'll ignore your allegations.
You're long on allegations & short on proof. That's the pattern of your typical idiot liberal. You can do better, Sir.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 24-Jun-08 10:39 PM
"Shocking! Walz isn't basing his opinion on a study from the Heritage Foundation, an organization dedicated to manipulating the data any way possible until it "supports" misguided conservative policies.
Comment by Jeff Rosenberg "
Speaking of "Where's the Proof?" where IS the proof Jeff? You can not simply lay an accusation out like that and expect it to go unchallenged....
WHERE'S THE PROOF?
LL
What If It's the Message?
Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial . Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here's how Mr. Brown first frames his question:
After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party's core message. It wasn't the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.Two paragraphs later, here's how he continues his argument:
These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.This presupposes the Dems losing this November, which isn't a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless, what happens if John McCain becomes our 44th president? At that point, Democrats couldn't credibly argue that they didn't have the money to get their message out. They couldn't argue that their messenger didn't have the communication skills requisite to get the job done.
Politics or Presentation?
Nevertheless, it's clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman's communication skills.
Not only is the political playing field stacked in the Democrats' favor - an unpopular war, an even less popular Republican president, and a slow and perhaps shrinking economy; but also their White House candidate is the extraordinary communicator in this race. Sen. Obama is clearly the most charismatic candidate and the best public speaker that the Democrats have offered in many decades. Some might say since John F. Kennedy; others might go further back.
Therefore, the argument goes, if the Illinois senator, who could sell ice to Eskimos, can't close the deal, there is a pressing need for a serious overhaul of the Democratic mindset.
If they lose this time, what they'll argue is that Americans were too bigoted to elect a man of color. If that's what happens, Americans should reject that argument loudly and with clear logic. Simply state that you wouldn't vote for Sen. Obama because he isn't prepared for commander-in-chief responsibilities. Argue that you voted for Sen. McCain because he's stated that he doesn't see anything wrong with high energy prices.
It's also possible to tell people that we can't afford Sen. Obama's tax policies, especially at a time when everyone's wallets are stretched thin.
The reality that Democrats won't admit is that conservatism only loses when it abandons a big enough part of the ideological battlefield to give Democrats an edge. When conservatives are passionately espousing conservatism's core beliefs of liberty and prosperity, it's the dominant political philosophy in the United States .
To the activists: It's time we doubled our efforts to tell voters about conservatism. It's time that we told our elected officials that we'll stand with them when they fight for conservative principles. We know this approach works because of recent results here in Minnesota.
In January, 2007, Laura Brod proposed tax cuts during a debate on a bill talking about tax conformity. The Speaker ruled Rep. Brod's proposal wasn't germane to the debate being held. Everyone in that chamber knew that that was BS. That's why Rep. Brod fought for those tax cuts. They didn't win that fight but they signalled that they wouldn't be the DFL's lapdogs.
A month later, GOP legislators met with covert GOP operatives (King Banaian, Jeff Johnson and myself) and plotted strategy for the session. What we told these legislators was that we'd "have their backs as long as they fought for core conservative principles." Then we stayed in touch with these legislators, thanking them for fighting the good fight.
By fighting the good fight, Republicans thwarted the DFL's attempt to increase spending by 17+ percent. By fighting the good fight, Republicans thwarted the DFL's attempt to increase taxes by $5.5 billion.
The upshot of that is that GOP activists are willing to run through walls for GOP incumbents seeking re-election and candidates seeking to unseat liberals sitting in borrowed seats. Fundraising is going strong. Volunteeris are popping out of the woodwork for marching in parades.
Democrats don't have an appealing message because they're the Whining Party. (Charles Krauthammer said that Democrats are the "party of two years ago ", especially on Iraq.) It's the opposite in the GOP because conservatives have an appealing message based on common sense solutions and a sense of optimism.
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:44 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Jun-08 07:18 AM
I think we would be further ahead if we stopped using the word "conservative" as a shorthand for our ideas. Years of Herculean effort by the MSM has managed to tarnish that word almost as badly as the word "liberalism" has been tarnished by its actual practice. Why not simply refer to our ideas as "common sense" in general, since most people agree when presented with the specifics?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-08 07:21 AM
Good point.
Who Are These Mysterious "GOP Strategists"?
Reading through Stuart Rothenberg's report on the current state of Senate races, I was stopped at this sentence:
The next most vulnerable Senate seat, in Minnesota, has moved toward the Republicans in recent weeks. GOP strategists have successfully put presumptive Democratic-Farmer-Labor nominee Al Franken on the defensive , both over his nonpayment of certain taxes and, more importantly, a variety of statements he has made over the years.Gee, I can't imagine who they're talking about when they say GOP strategists. JUST KIDDING. What Mr. Rothenberg says after that is worth noting:
Franken has defended his remarks by insisting that they were part of his shtick and intended as satire, not statements of his beliefs. But his language has been crude and his comedy often biting, and even some Democratic officeholders have expressed concern about his judgment.Let's take a breath and realize the enormity of that last paragraph. What Michael has done has created a box from which there is no escaping for Mr. Franken. The only thing that's left is for Franken to thrash about.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has benefited in the polls of late, and even though Franken has time to change the dynamic of the race, it now seems likely that the comedian turned politician will have to defend himself repeatedly over the next four months. At the very least, that puts the challenger constantly on the defensive, improving Coleman's prospects.
Let's also note that Sen. Coleman helped himself immensely by introducing his energy bill. Sen. Coleman has stayed accessable through periodic blogger conference calls, too.
Here's something from Mr. Rothenberg's report that I found fascinating:
We've had four noteworthy Senate "waves" in the past 28 years, in 2006, 1994, 1986 and 1980, and it's possible that we'll see another one this year. But it's also possible that all the talk about Democratic Senate opportunities is just a bit over-hyped , and that Democrats will have a good year, not a great one.A month ago, strategists were speculating that Democrats would hold a veto proof majority in the Senate and would have solidified their control of the House after another romp. I didn't take those speculations seriously then. I take them less seriously now.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, the House GOP leadership have made high gas prices their issue . I don't know how much impact that will have in terms of net seats gained/lossed in House races but I'm bettng it'll be significant.
I know that it'll be a big issue in Minnesota's First District race between Rep. Tim Walz and challenger Brian Davis. Expect Davis to intensify his attacks on
It's entirely possible that the energy issue will also affect Senate races, too, though I don't know how much. I'll guarantee, though, that that's one of the indicators I'll be watching. I'm betting that Mr. Rothenberg will, too.
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:20 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 24-Jun-08 09:25 AM
Amazingly enough the Republican Party is actually showing signs of life. Five buck a gallon gas is making the Dems anti-energy policies a huge liability. The Uriah Heep of American politics, Tom Daschle, was on Fox News Sunday repeating the line that any drilling wouldnt add a significant amount of oil to our supply until 2030! 22 years from now.
It shows what a knucklehead Wallace is that he didnt challenge a statement so incredibly dishonest. The elite doesnt get it, any of them. The slogan of the Republicans this year should be, "The Dems want to steal your car and hand you a bus pass!"
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-08 10:54 AM
It shows what a knucklehead Wallace is that he didnt challenge a statement so incredibly dishonest.
I totally disagree with that. That statement was so absurd that challenging it would've led to an argument, which would've distracted attention away from the absurdity of the statement.
Big Oil Isn't the Big Problem
That's the headline for this LA Times op-ed by Jacob Heilbrunn . I've never suspected that 'Big Oil' was causing our problems but it was a nice shot in the arm to see that headline in the LA Times. The downside is that Heilbrunn still advocates using less energy instead of producing more:
The recent past suggests that, in fact, efforts to influence the supply of energy can actually boomerang, driving up prices and consumption. Rather than demonize Big Oil, lawmakers should focus on tamping down demand.Had Mr. Heilbrunn taken an all of the above approach, I might've praised him. Instead, he took the liberal 'we must do more with less' approach. He had the chance to ignore the global warming myth but he didn't. Too bad. To be fair, though, he makes some worthwhile points. Here's one of those points:
Consider Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has been lambasting "oil barons" as though we were back in the bad old days of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil cornering the market. He is touting a Consumer-First Energy Act that would, among other things, punish oil producers with a complicated 25% windfall profits tax and create a government program to reinvest that money in renewable energy, perhaps with some of the same companies. That's too much government, too little common sense.Anytime the government strongarms the 'free' market into doing something, the result is predictably disastrous. Likewise, anytime Harry Reid has a solution to a problem, rest assured of the fact that it'll make matters worse. Sen. Reid doesn't have the qualifications to Senate Majority Leader, though his experiences with land transactions and zoning laws make him eminently qualified for a city council position.
Final Verdict: "too much government, too little common sense."
Here's something else that Mr. Heilbrunn gets right:
A worthier bill is the proposed Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which would extend tax breaks for alternative energy producers. It incentivizes innovation without the government deciding what is and isn't innovative.Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke to this at last Saturday's Listening Week Wrap-up . The good news is that there's substantial support for extending the tax credits. The bad news is that Ms. Pelosi's Do-Nothing Congress doesn't even have debate scheduled for the legislation.
As usual, the American people are speeding their way past the government in finding solutions. Here's a perfect example:
"With the Volt," he writes, "GM, battered, beleaguered, struggling for profitability, hopes to re-engineer not just the car but the way the public thinks about cars, the way the public thinks about GM, and the way GM thinks about itself."Here's another perfect example of American consumers taking matters into their own hands:
The U.S. Department of Transportation recently announced that for six straight months, Americans have driven fewer miles compared with last year.While all of this helps, it's still important to increase oil exploration and production. That will cut the legs right out from under tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
It doesn't get any better than that.
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:09 PM
No comments.
Gov. Palin Chastizes Harry Reid
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a letter harshly criticizing the Do-Nothing Senate for blocking real energy reform, which is hurting American families. It's a stinging rebuke, one that's certain to leave a mark. Here's the paragraph where Gov. Palin first lets loose with the heavy artillery:
What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside the Capitol Beltway that virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy polilcy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daly lives and has begun to affect America's place in the world.If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to gift wrap the bigges issue in this election, all they need to do is nothing. The Democrats' mantra has been that you can't drill your way out of this artificial gas crisis. They're entitled to stick with that mantra but it won't help them.
Over the past 80 days, proposals have been table to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is offlimits to such activity. I strongly support OCS development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the OCS and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR, the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America.
The American people are smart enough to know that we can't alternative and conserve our way out of this crisis.
Americans know that it's the height of stupidity to hold ourselves hostage while gas prices skyrocket. Where's the wisdom in that? Do Democrats think that families care about saving the environment when high gas prices are driving up prices, whether it's on groceries, clothes or any other product?
One thing that's obvious is that Democrats don't think that families will take their frustrations out on Democrats for their inaction. It might not affect them in the Senate but I'll bet a fistful of cash that it'll affect races in the House.
One report I heard from a political staffer earlier this week is that Floridians were upset with politicians on both sides of the aisle for not being willing to open up drilling off their coasts. Now Charlie Crist is believed to have changed his position on the issue, which the pundits think will lead to other Republicans to follow his lead.
If Floridians see Republicans siding with them, that has the potential to change the dynamics of a number of their House races.
The other important question that we've got to ask Americans is whether they're better off now than they were in June, 2006. Let's ask them what things Democrats did to make them more prosperous. Let's ask them what legislation they've passed that's made them more protected from terrorist attacks. Let's ask them if they like the fact that Democrats stubbornly refuse to open up vast oil and natural gas reserves while gas prices and utility bills skyrocket.
Simply put, if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi promise their environmentalist allies that they'll stand in the way of increasing oil exploration, then Republicans have an affirmative obligation to the American people to run Pelosi and Reid and their minions over with a road grader.
If Pelosi and Reid refuse to pave the road to prosperity, then it's time that they became part of the pavement.
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:46 AM
Comment 1 by Matt Abe at 25-Jun-08 08:26 AM
Sarah Palin for Vice President 2008! Palin for President 2012!
Feingold's FISA Flip-Flop-Flip
Initially, Russ Feingold said that he'd fight the FISA legislation currently making its way through the Senate but that he wouldn't filibuster it. When his Nutroots puppeteers heard that, they changed his mind fast . Now he's singing a totally different tune. Here's some of the new 'lyrics':
The Wisconsin Democrat voiced considerable frustration with members of his own party, who, he says, have enabled the sweeping new legislation. "Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake," Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. "But I'm extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican... but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way."While Feingold hasn't changed his mind on the legislation being awful, he's changed his mind on whether he'd attempt to stop it with a filibuster and through procedural votes. Democrats can't be seen as not getting a FISA reform bill to President Bush's desk before the current set of warrants expire.
"We met with Sen. Reid on Friday morning," said Feingold, speaking of himself and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., "and we indicated our desire that this thing not just be jammed through, we'll be requiring key procedural votes and we'll also be taking some time on the floor this week to indicate the problems with this legislation."
If those warrants expire, Republicans will spend August telling the voters that Democrats put their trial attorney allies' priorities ahead of national security. It's unlikely that Democrats will want to be put in that defensive posture for an entire month, especially since they're already in a defensive position on oil exploration.
That's the type of position they can't afford to be in. Picture the RNC ads talking about how Democrats are making America vulnerable to terrorist attacks at the same time that they're doing nothing to ease Americans' pain at the pumps.
Being on the wrong side of the prosperity and security issues isn't the way to win elections. I recall a poll in 1984 that showed Walter Mondale winning all but 2 issues. The bad news is that the issue he lost were prosperity and national security. We saw how that turned out.
If Feingold persists in filibustering this bill, then he'll put pressure on Barack Obama. If Obama votes to continue the filibuster, he'll rightly be called soft on national security. If he votes to limit debate, he'll rightly be accused of flip-flopping on the issue.
Captain Ed says that it's possible that Sen. Obama will be campaigning "in some town hundreds of miles from DC." If he does that, Republicans and the Right Blogosphere will blast him for not having the spine to make a decision on the most important national security issue of this session. They'll rightly accuse him of being a spineless politician that doesn't want to get pinned down on the thorniest issues of the day.
That isn't being a leader. That's being spineless. These days, spineless doesn't sell.
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:09 AM
No comments.
