June 8-10, 2008
Jun 08 02:58 Another Issue Obama Will Have To Distance Himself From Jun 08 09:14 Answering Mark Steyn's Questions Jun 08 20:02 **Media Alert** Jun 08 23:47 DFL Feminist Caucus: Franken Won't Do It Again Jun 09 07:23 GOP Core Principles Becoming Obsolete? Don't Bet On It Jun 09 08:56 The Reef That Breaks The Wave Jun 09 12:47 Message Matters Jun 10 07:27 Pushing the Oil Exploration Envelope Jun 10 10:39 Heading For a Showdown
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Another Issue Obama Will Have To Distance Himself From
Give Barack Obama credit for one thing: He's as good as it gets at shooting his mouth off about an issue, then backtracking on it. Climate change will be another issue that he'll have to backtrack on. Here's what he's posted on his website:
We can't afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, and the periods of drought. By 2050, famine could force more than 250 million from their homes. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.My God, it sounds like he's swallowed Al Gore's speech hook, line and
Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is every bit as radical as Al Gore on the issues. It's just that he doesn't have that image yet. After reading this opening, it won't take long before he's viewed as a nut, though:
As this week's debate on climate change has unfolded, the American people and those watching us around the world had every reason to hope that we would act. Every credible scientist and expert believes action is necessary. This is critical and long overdue legislation that represents a good first step in addressing one of the most serious problems facing our generation.Sen. Obama just pissed off credible scientists who've poked holes in the myth of manmade global warming. What's more revealing is the fact that he thinks that this disastrous bill is only a "good first step." Someone should point out to Sen. Obama that Cap and Tax includes a $4+ trillion net tax increase. His political advisers should point out that the bill is filled with loopholes, which would've produced incredible amounts of infighting amongst lobbyists over who would've gotten the most lucrative loopholes.
This is what always happens when a bill overreaches. The Christmas tree effect with this bill is incredible. There's more stuff in this bill than you'd find in a Thanksgiving turkey. This isn't legislation. It's a payoff to the envirowhacko lobby, which Democrats will point to the next time they hit these people up for a campaign contribution.
I believe that the American people are ready to lead the world on this issue.This is Obama's attempt to sound like a visionary leader. He isn't a visionary leader. He's just a demagogic politician.
The time for distractions, divisions, and excuses is over.TRANSLATION: It's time to cut off debate on this issue and pass this bill before we have to defend it. What Obama characterizes as distractions and divisions are factual disagreements, especially with the premise that the US is destroying the planet.
It'd be interesting to hear Sen. Obama's explanation why he'd vote for this bill. After all, it's nothing more than the Kyoto Treaty with a different title. It's still junk science. It's still a jobkilling tax increase.
I suspect that Sen. Obama will add this to a long list of things where he pops off one day, then backtracks the minute someone points out the stupidity of his statement like he did with his pledge to meet with the Axis of Despots without precondition.
Posted Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:59 AM
No comments.
Answering Mark Steyn's Questions
Mark Steyn has written another brilliant column in which he ridicules the Obamessiah on a variety of different things. He also ridicules faux journalist Chris Matthews for his tingling leg whenever he thinks about the Toy Messiah . All that aside, Mr. Steyn asks some questions. First, Steyn treats us to this uplifting part of the Obamessiah's victory speech Tuesday night:
"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment, this was the time, when we came together to remake this great nation."Steyn then asks a question that highlights the inanity of Obama's speech:
As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it?This is just a guess but it might need remaking because "this great nation" isn't sufficiently created in the Obamessiah's own image. In other words, it isn't caring enough to measure up to the Obamessiah's standards. We won't measure up until we've insured the final uninsured person and hired the last unemployed person.
We can't measure up to the Obamessiah's standards until we've stopped the oceans from swallowing up our coastal cities .
Then Steyn surmises that someone will ask this question after hearing Obama's speech:
"'Heal the planet'? Is this guy nuts?"The simple answer to that is no, though he's a narcissist of incredible, and possibly unprecedented, proportions. This guy's more full of himself than any politician I've ever seen, which is saying something considering how fresh my recollection is of Bill Clinton.
Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.Amen, Mr. Steyn. It's crucial that we get an adult in the White House. That isn't who we'd be getting if the Obamessiah is elected. The good news is that Sen. Obama is tying himself to some dangerous policies and to some stupid policies.
Tying himself to the Cap and Tax bill at a time when gas is $4 a gallon is just plain stupid. It's sure to get the envirowhackos and elitists smiling but blue collar workers won't appreciate it much.
One thing that Sen. Obama didn't learn is that it's infinitely more important to win the average Joe's favor than to put a tingle in Chris Matthews' leg.
Posted Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Comment 1 by susan at 08-Jun-08 09:31 AM
Yes unemployment is up as a statistic but every one person that wants to find a job can if they choose to. Lots of 75k, 100K and 150K jobs left...see for yourself.
http://www.realmatch.com
http://www.monster.com
http://www.careerbuilder.com
Stats are just stats...
**Media Alert**
Just a reminder: I'll be joining Kevin at Pundit Review Radio at 8:40 CDT. For those not in Boston who want to listen, follow this link then click on the Listen Now icon in the top left corner of the page.
UPDATE: I just finished a 12 minute conversation with Kevin from Pundit Review Radio on Lt. Andrew Grayson's acquittal this week. We also touched on this Obama quote :
Colmes: Did Murtha say that in the right way?There isn't a better example of Obama's poor judgment than this. Why anyone would trust someone as ethically challenged as John Murtha is beyond me.
Obama: You know, I don't have the exact quotes in front of me. What I know is here is a guy who served our country. I would never second guess John Murtha... I think he's somebody who knows of which he speaks.
One thing that I touched on was my feelings about the blogosphere's disinterest in the Haditha Marines. I told Kevin that we expect the NY Times, CBS News and the rest of the Agenda Media to not be interested in the Haditha scandal so that isn't as disappointing as the New Media's seeming disinterest in this. If the New Media doesn't stand up for true American heroes, which is what the Haditha Marines are, then we need to reexamine our priorities.
Thanks to men like Kevin, this scandal isn't getting forgotten. As I said before, make certain you listen to Kevin's show each Sunday night AND be sure to bookmark his website .
Posted Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:16 PM
No comments.
DFL Feminist Caucus: Franken Won't Do It Again
According to this Strib article , Jackie Stevenson, the leader of the DFL Feminist Caucus, said that they endorsed Al Franken after screening both candidates. Here's how she explained her organization's decision:
"At the time he didn't realize how it would affect him later in life," Stevenson said. "He wouldn't do it again today."That's an extremely lame explanation. What proof does Ms. Stevenson have that it won't happen again? Is it based on him saying this sort of thing only once? Or is she using the time-tested "I just know" method. I suspect it's the latter, not the former.
Whether Franken realized his disgusting humor "would affect him later in life" or not, that type of sense of humor won't play well with many devout church-going Catholics or evangelical voters. That's a huge deficit to make up this November. I can't imagine Franken having much chance with that group of voters.
She said the group was impressed with his direct answers on issues critical to members, including domestic violence. She said Nelson-Pallmeyer had been more vague. Stevenson said the group was willing to look past salacious material from Franken's past that some have considered degrading to women.The time is coming when Minnesotans will decide if Franken's raunchy 'humor' (I use that term loosely) is something that he once did or if it's part of who he is.
If Franken didn't have a history of making off-color remarks, it'd be reasonable to think that it's just something that happened. Since Franken's repeatedly done this type of thing, though, it's reasonable to think that this is who he is.
That Stevenson and others in the DFL Feminist Caucus are willing to "look past salacious material from Franken's past" tells me that this group is more interested in winning elections than in being advocates on women's issues. Franken's "salacious material from his past" is pretty raunchy and degrading to women. It can't be ignored because ignoring it is to passively condone it.
The DFL Feminist Caucus should know that that simply isn't acceptable. Shame on them for endorsing Franken.
Posted Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:47 PM
No comments.
GOP Core Principles Becoming Obsolete? Don't Bet On It
Anyone who's read this website knows that my first choice for president was Fred Thompson. Since that didn't work out the way I'd hoped, I'm thankful that he didn't just disappear back to Hollywood. We need Fred to continue advocating conservatism's core principles. That's precisely what he did in this column .
We've heard alot recently that we'd have to remake the GOP brand, whatever that's supposed to be. I suspect the people saying it really mean that conservatives need to abandon conservatism. I've rejected that as utter nonsense. I'm not alone in the Right Blogosphere, either. The best news is that Fred Thompson thinks it's BS, too:
We know that we were given a country based upon certain eternal truths, the wisdom of the scriptures and the wisdom of the ages, the fact that there is such a thing as human nature that has to be taken into account when governing, and most fundamentally, based upon the fact that people are meant to be free. Our founders derived from these principles a government that had its powers separated, checked and balanced because they knew that power tended to corrupt. In keeping with that they incorporated in our Constitution a system of Federalism to make sure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government, which was given delineated powers and no others.When we see government burdening us with unnecessary regulations, it's imperative that we fight against it. When we see government attempting to burden us with trillion dollar tax increases, we must fight against it.
True conservatives are steadfast about federalism because it defines what different layers of government are responsible for. That's why John McCain isn't a true conservative. The minute conservatives stop being steadfast about federalism is the minute that the GOP starts having electoral troubles. Once that happens, it's difficult to get the genie back in the bottle, which is what's happening right now.
It's important to note why federalism was part of conservatism's core: a powerful central government is destined to be corrupt. It's inevitable. Here's another great Fredism:
Some of our fellow Republicans say that things are different now and we must change with the times. We recognize that appropriate change is necessary, just as the conservative thinker Edmund Burke did when he supported the American Revolution.More than anything else, we need to eliminate spineless squishies. That said, we can't just abandon them. It's imperative that we immediately replace the squishies with steadfast, principled conservatives. The reason why we need to replace squishies with principled conservatives is because we need that type of person in Washington, where they'll be attacked for their beliefs daily. There isn't a better example of that than the woman who represents me in Washington, Michele Bachmann . In her stump speeches, she often brags that her spine is made of titanium, something I don't doubt because she's withstood some whithering attacks from the left. She hasn't abandoned those principles, though.
However we must ask those who would modify our principles, "When did freedom and liberty become outdated?" Then, "What part of our Constitutional framework needs to be abandoned?"
We needn't abandon conservatism. If anything, we need to stop acting like Democrats. If the "GOP brand" is tarnished, it's because we lost sight of the principles of Reagan and Goldwater. Finally, check this out:
Not too long ago I was asked by a group of 11 year olds why I was so interested in government and politics. I thought about it for a minute and then I said that, while I was interested in politics from an early age, as I got older I became more interested in what politics were supposed to do, like protect our freedoms. I told them that over the years as I read world history it dawned on me just how unique our country was . How a small group of intellectuals and a much larger group of average people, servants, tradesmen, some folks who had had run-ins with the law but all of whom shared a desire for liberty, came here, carved out a place in the wilderness and decided they could govern themselves. How they came up with a Constitution that was the envy of the world and still is . How they elected a President who could have been a king, but instead served his terms, got on his horse and rode out of town never to return.Isn't it time we got busy electing conservatives and governing like conservatives? I'd say it's long past time.
Posted Monday, June 9, 2008 7:24 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Jun-08 10:24 AM
Great rhetorical question, and the right answer. So tell me: How? The names that will appear on the ballot have already been decided. I can vote for a Republican or a Democrat, but no where do I see a "conservative" label, I have to decide that for myself, and after that, I STILL have but two choices-- a Republican or Democrat.
Isn't the question, "HOW do we elect more conservatives and get those already elected to govern more conservatively?"
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-08 11:03 AM
Eventually, yes, we have to determine how we'll vote in each election but Fred's article deals more with building a new conservative movement so that our choices get easier with each election cycle.
For the time being, yes, we have to decide if we'll demand conservative purity & whether we should vote for specific candidates. Personally, I've already made my decision.
I'll be voting for Norm & Sen. McCain because they're serious about preventing jihadists' attacks & because they believe in strict constructionist judges & because they believe in keeping taxes low & stable.
The Reef That Breaks The Wave
DFL politicians are wondering what effect Al Franken will have on downballot DFLers. According to this SC Times article , it sounds like some are worried, and justifiably so at that:
But some Democratic lawmakers wondered if his name on the general election ballot will benefit other Democratic candidates. Rick Hansen, a Democratic legislator from South St. Paul and longtime local party activist, said Franken crispy and calmly addressed his recent woes. But Hansen said he's convinced the character questions will dog him all fall.Having Franken on the ticket can't help Democrats, which is why I'm a happy camper following the DFL's endorsement of him. I agree with Mr. Hansen that Franken's character questions will dog him until the day he's defeated. I said here that Al Franken's tawdry behavior is part of who he is, not just something he did once. It isn't likely that he'd be a calm advocate for Minnesotans. The things I've seen suggest that he'd be a bombthrowing advocate for MoveOn.org.
Hansen said he and some other elected officials who will share the ballot with Franken remain apprehensive. "Two years ago Amy added to the wave," he said of Klobuchar's landslide victory in 2006. "He may not add to the wave. He may be the reef that breaks our wave."
Of the Democrats that I've talked with, most aren't enthusiastic about Franken's candidacy. Most would've supported Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer if they thought he had half a chance of winning. They'd certainly support Mike Ciresi but that ship has sailed.
Hansen is right that Amy Klobuchar added to the DFL wave in 2006. Some might even say that she generated the enthusiasm for the DFL wave. That certainly won't be the case with Franken or El Tinklenberg. I haven't seen proof that Mr. Tinklenberg has generated any enthusiasm for his run against Michele Bachmann. Just looking at these fundraising numbers is enough to convince me that Tinklenberg will be a drag on the DFL ticket.
Couple that with the DFL activists' enthusiasm for Franken's Senate race and we could be staring at a less than stellar year for the DFL.
Posted Monday, June 9, 2008 8:56 AM
No comments.
Message Matters
This morning, two articles caught my attention because they don't address the most important thing in winning elections. Here's a snippet from the Al Franken article:
Franken secured the Democratic endorsement over the weekend after courting each of the 1,400 delegates that attended the convention. He had raised $9.4 million for his bid by the end of March, more than the $8.7 million raised by Coleman.Let's be blunt about this. Al Franken can have more money in the bank but it won't help him because he doesn't have an appealing message to run on. He talks frequently about holding Sen. Coleman accountable but he doesn't talk about what he'd do to get gas prices down. Sure, he's got an energy page on his campaign website but it isn't a very informative page:
The natural resources we have right here in Minnesota, not just corn and soybeans and biomass and wind, but innovation and creativity and brainpower, can lead to amazing breakthroughs if we commit to this undertaking.The only thing he says about energy is about renewable energy. Everyone agrees that renewable are part of the solution but the truly wise people know that it isn't the solution. In our blogger conference calls, Sen. Coleman reminds us that, while he's opposed to drilling in ANWR, he's in favor of offshore exploration and drilling. He's for increasing domestic exploration and production of oil.
The other article that caught my attenion is a PIM article about Paul Gardner. Gardner, you'll remember, defeated Phil Krinkie in 2006 by 51 votes. Here's a portion of the article:
During his freshman term, Gardner has been cutting a modern path presenting his work to constituents electronically. He's been getting into the multimedia thing, with a YouTube video about transportation posted in February. He also makes weekly posts about policy and local affairs on paulgardner53a.blogspot.com , and he encourages his fellow legislators to follow his lead. He likes to let people know what lobbyists have been seeing him, what's happening on his committees, and in his session wrap-up, where his bills entered law , often tucked deep within omnibus bills. (He's even got a Facebook account!)I wish the House GOP would step into the 21st century like Rep. Gardner has but that's another story for another day. The point I want to highlight isn't the technology. That's interesting but it won't help Rep. Gardner if he doens't have a good voting record on taxes and spending increases.
The point is this: when your local Paul Gardner knocks on your door, will you care more about how he voted for spending and tax increases or will you be more curious about his technogizmos? I suspect you'll care more that he didn't reduce government's burden on your wallet.
Let's remember something else with regard to the tax increases that the DFL passed in 2007. They tried increasing taxes while we were running a significant budget surplus. When we went into deficit, they wanted to raise taxes again. Rest assured, too, that they plan on increasing taxes in 2009. That's their motivation behind using the rainy day funds this year. They hope that the deficit continues next year so they can raise taxes.
We should pound them into the ground on this. We should pin these freshmen down on whether they'd raise taxes first or if they'd cut spending. (I know what the answer will be but it's important to pin them down on this issue.)
If we learned anything from this year's presidential race, it's that money doesn't always buy you lots of votes. We can't say that Mitt Romney's outspending Mike Huckabee by a 9:1 margin in Iowa helped him much. It's impossible to say that the Obamessiah's outspending Hillary by a 3:1 margin in Pennsylvania helped him much.
The moral of this story continues to be simple: You can't win if you don't have an appealing message no matter what other advantages you have. That's what happens when people run campaigns based on ideas, not personalities.
Posted Monday, June 9, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 10-Jun-08 12:20 AM
"It's impossible to say that the Obamessiah's ..."
You keep up with your message, and the DFL won't need one to win; your message of hate and intollerance will do you in.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Jun-08 01:24 AM
What's hateful & intolerant about saying that Obama outspent Hillary in Pennsylvania by a wide margin?
Methinks you need a thicker skin or an attitude adjustment.
Pushing the Oil Exploration Envelope
This article is proof that Republicans are turning up the heat on Democrats with regard to increasing oil exploration. I said here that pushing that agenda will put Democrats in oil hell. I'm still confident that it's a lose-lose situation for Democrats.
"At the end of the day, I think we need to make a decision, while we're increasing our technological capability in this country and while we're moving to sort of wean ourselves off such dependency on fossil fuels, do we want to have more reserves that we're dependent upon here in our country or do we want to continue to ship billions and trillions of dollars overseas?" Corker asked rhetorically.The key to solving this crisis is to employ a comprehensive approach. Any plan that focuses too much on one thing won't help in the short term. The Democrats' solution to the high gas prices is to make it more expensive. That's the guaranteed result of a windfall profits tax.
He said there was "a very simple answer."
"We can do that certainly in environmentally safe ways. That's the only way it should be done," said Corker. "But we've had our head in the sand."
Alexander (R-TN), in agreement with Corker, said Congress should allow oil exploration in Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as exploration offshore. He said drilling in Alaska would produce 1 million barrels of crude oil a day.
For the longer term, Alexander has proposed a new "Manhattan" project, only this time it would take a comprehensive look at energy as opposed to building an atom bomb like in World War II.
That could have short-term effects as well, Alexander said, on the price Tennesseans and Americans are paying at the pump. "From the day the American president said we were doing that, I think gas prices would stabilize and begin to go down because the rest of the world would know and the speculators would know that we're on our way to being independent in terms of the energy we produce," Alexander said.
In addition, Alexander wants to "give big oil some competition" by utilizing ethanol and electricity through plug-in cars.
The oil speculators that Sen. Alexander referenced take into account what the Democratic congress didn't do. They know that every day that they don't increase production, the longer this crisis will last. Democrats want to remove the oil companies' profits with the WPT. What this will do is effectively reduce production. If the oil companies aren't going to make a profit, then there isn't much incentive to send their product to market.
The longer this lasts, the deeper the upcoming recession will be.
Most of the time, I'm thankful that this is a do-nothing congress because it means they aren't doing any harm to America. This is one time when I wish we had a congress that got things done.
To those of you that supposedly 'taught them a lesson': Is this what you'd hoped for? As corrupt as that congress was, I'd take it in a heartbeat over this bunch of stiffs.
Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:29 AM
Comment 1 by patriot at 10-Jun-08 08:09 AM
I see another "short term" favorable impact; the second the President or Congress announces we are drilling in ANWR or the shale in Colorado, the Saudi's and Iranians and all others will release the reserves they've been holding to drive the price up. Resulting in an instantaneous increase in supply and drop in price.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Jun-08 10:15 AM
Patriot, I believe that that's what will happen but I don't know that with total certainty. It's a pretty reasonable opinon, though.
One thing that's certain is that won't cause a price spike. At minimum, it'll stabilize prices.
Comment 3 by Byron at 10-Jun-08 11:24 AM
What a joke. You want to know the big reason for high oil prices? Boy George and his idiotic middleastern war. I mean, what would YOU do if some country that was dependent on you for something vital simultaneously ATTACKED you?
"The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert, costing the world a staggering $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone. The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war."
http://www.alternet.org/story/86515/
"Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and the deepening dispute with the West over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has contributed to oil's rally."
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/06/08/2008-06-08T145502Z_01_L08325671_RTRIDST_0_OPEC-WRAPUP-1.html
Thanks Bush and Republicans
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 10-Jun-08 01:16 PM
Byron, if that's true, then why didn't oil spike this dramatically immediately?
It's illogical to say that oil is this expensive because of the war because it doesn't take into account the dramatic spike in China's & India's consumption.
You're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe but I'll make decisions based on facts & logic, not BDS.
Comment 5 by Byron at 10-Jun-08 05:35 PM
Gary, one reason is apparently because the OPEC countries believed this administration's lie that they were going to be there just long enough to get rid of Saddam (of which a snipers bullet would have cost so much less than this war has). But instead we now know that they planned this war well before 9/11 and getting rid of Saddam was just the selling point.
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-HoustonChron-Herskowitz/
The US has turned into an occupying force and the war has resulted in over a million dead Islamic brothers (as they might see it) and close to 5 million refugees. This in a country with less than 30 million people.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7950
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/76841/
And we all know that Bush dearly wants to invade Iran too. That ought to add nicely to our current economic cornucopia.
"NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html
Of course there are likely other factors involved. For example, now coincidentally that W has just months left in his reign suddenly oil prices are shooting up? Why? Could it have anything to do with the current push to open ANWR, offshore and other domestic locations to drilling, something Big Oil has been craving but has been stymied in for decades? It's a fact that oil prices have been manipulated in the past for W's benefit.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/20/did_bush_cut_secret_oil_deal
So they figure with skyhigh prices who's going to object now? And of course we can't forget good 'ol American greed & gouging.
"No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today.... The major problem faced by Big Oil is not finding replacement oil but keeping the lid on world oil finds in order to maintain present exorbitant prices.... The refiners today are clearly trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up" http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4793.html
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 10-Jun-08 10:22 PM
It's a fact that oil prices have been manipulated in the past for W's benefit.It isn't fact. It's myth. George Soros manipulated currency to artificially raise oil prices. When that didn't work, he tried other manipulations to spike them.
What I find striking is that you put little emphasis on increasing demand while production has leveled off.
The Middle East hasn't had nearly the same effect as you initially argued.
Heading For a Showdown
It's obvious that we're heading for a showdown between Senate Democrats and 'Big Oil'. The Senate is ratcheting things up with their (non) energy plan. Here's a few details of their non-plan:
The Democrats' energy package also would:This isn't productive. Then again, the Democrats have been unproductive for the most part since retaking the majority. (I'm thankful for that because their agenda is radical.) As I said here, increasing taxes on oil companies while preventing them from producing more oil here at home is counterproductive.
- Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
- Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
- Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.
The only thing it's good for is to have Democrats thump their chests and say 'We're punishing evil big oil'. It apparently isn't important that they've done nothing to be part of the solution. In fact, it apparently isn't that important that they're part of the problem.
People are looking for solutions. The Democrats' plan (I'm using the term loosely) isn't a solution; it's a political ploy. If Republicans keep pushing Newt's plan , they'll quickly be seen as having a solution. If Republicans are seen as having the solution, they'll get a big fundraising lift and in the polls.
I'm confident, too, that first term Democrats running in the South will be on the hot seat the more the increased exploration agenda is pushed. That's a good thing because it puts the Democrats on the defensive. They either let these freshmen do what they want or they put them on the endangered species list.
Oil executives, testifying before Congress last month, called the proposed taxes "punitive" and warned that they would discourage domestic oil and gas exploration and production, possibly causing prices to rise instead of fall.Democrats can reject the comparison all they want. That won't change the public's opinion that they want lower gas prices. It won't be difficult to prove them wrong. A simple Google search would undoubtedly produce headlines and articles that would show people what happened.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the early 1980s, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies domestic oil production dropped and imports increased.
But Democrats reject the comparison.
Most Senate Republicans have a different approach to dealing with the growing energy crisis: pump more oil and gas.Democrats won't let this happen but that's ok. Republicans will be able to point to the Democrats' standing in the way of lowering prices during the fall campaign. I'm betting that the American people will trust Republicans, if for no other reason than that they have a coherent plan.
The GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.
"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," said McConnell.
Everyone knows that renewables and other alternative energy sources must be part of the solution but they know that everything has to be on the table. Here's a question for Democrats:
Why would you unilaterally make anything offlimits in finding a solution to this crisis?
The D's don't have an answer for that question. That's because they shouldn't make any capability offlimits in brainstorming for a solution to this crisis.
Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 10-Jun-08 05:21 PM
Are they really that crazy? Authorize the Justice Department to file charges against OPEC. The second that the Justice Department files a charge (assuming they are dumb enough to do this, but this is the gang that thinks if Obama is President than Bush can be charged with war crimes) I can imagine that country immediately saying they can't sell oil to the US. And god forbid if they ask all the members of OPEC to join them.
I wonder how all those Senate Democrats will blame the Republicans for that?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
