May 22, 2008
May 22 00:44 The Scariest 7 Word Sentence (If You're a Democrat) May 22 01:38 Oil Executives to Democrats: Let's Open the Spigots May 22 10:15 Governance By Constitutional Amendment: Is This a Better Way? May 22 11:15 The Path to Retaking the House? May 22 15:28 Heavy Metal
The Scariest 7 Word Sentence (If You're a Democrat)
Hillary Clinton is keeping open the possibility of taking her fight to the Democratic Convention. Here's the title for Brendan Farrington's article :
Clinton may take delegate fight to conventionI'll bet that that headline is giving Howard Dean and Barack Obama their worst cases of heartburn in years. Here's the portion of Mr. Harrington's article that's giving Mssrs. Dean and Obama their heartburn:
Clinton, too, was in Florida, pressing to narrow her gap with Obama by having delegates counted from its renegade January primary.Don't think that Republicans wouldn't point out the Democrats' hypocrisy if they don't seat Florida's delegation. Think of how their actions today would contrast with their "Count every vote" mantra of November, 2000. Frankly, I'd highlight the fact that Sen. Obama is running as a change agent who's talked about moving the discourse beyond partisan politics.
Democratic rule-makers meet May 31 to decide whether to count delegates from Florida and Michigan; the states were striped of their delegates as punishment for holding early primaries in violation of party rules. Clinton won both states, but Obama had his name kept off the Michigan ballot and neither candidate campaigned in those states.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton said she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far. Asked whether she would support the states if they appeal an unfavorable rules committee decision to the convention floor, the former first lady replied:
"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this." "I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it's really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I'll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do."
Taking her battle to the convention would fly in the face of an increasing number of party leaders who say the contest needs to be wrapped up shortly after the last primary on June 3 to prepare adequately for the fall election.
I don't think it'd play well with independants if Sen. Obama doesn't work to seat those delegates. Surely people would demand that a 'postpartisan savior' do everything possible to prevent the disenfranchisement of Florida's Democrats.
Sen. Obama has other reasons to be worried. Even without seating Florida's delegation, Florida will be a difficult state for him:
The Illinois senator confidently detoured Wednesday from the three remaining Democratic primary states, Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota, to campaign in Florida, a crucial state in the November general election. He also kept his focus on McCain, the Republicans' certain nominee in the fall.I've talked with several GOP activists in the state, one who lives in the panhandle, the other living in south Florida. Both contacts told me that Jewish voters are very skittish because of his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad. Cuban Hispanics aren't thrilled with him either, mostly because he's said that he'd meet with Castro.
South Florida has a sizeable population of ex-New Yorkers who've retired in Florida to escape their high taxes. These New Yorkers still care about national security, which isn't Sen. Obama's strength. Sen. Obama's inexperience will be exploited by the McCain campaign, too. Hillary couldn't win the 'inexperienced argument' because she wasn't significantly more experienced than Sen. Obama. Sen. McCain, however, will win that argument because he's dealt with lots of national security issues over a couple of decades.
UPDATE: I just was researching a couple things and found this NY Times article that ties into my post perfectly. Check this out:
BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. - At the Aberdeen Golf and Country Club on Sunday, the fountains were burbling, the man-made lakes were shining, and Shirley Weitz and Ruth Grossman were debating why Jews in this gated neighborhood of airy retirement homes feel so much trepidation about Senator Barack Obama.Jeremiah Wright still plays a big part in Jewish voters' trepidation about Sen. Obama:
"The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel," Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch. "They're going to vote for McCain," she said.
American Jews hold two competing views of Mr. Obama, said Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. First, there is Obama the scholar, the social justice advocate, the defender of Israel with a close feel for Jewish concerns garnered through decades of intimate friendships. In this version, Mr. Obama's race is an asset, Rabbi Saperstein said.Sen Obama will be held hostage by Jeremiah Wright until Election Day. If he pops his head out right before the election, he might well sink Obama's chances of winning Florida.
The second version is defined by the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., worries about Mr. Obama's past associations and questions about his support for Israel and his patriotism. "It's too early to know how they will play out," Rabbi Saperstein said.
Clinton pressed this issue publicly at an appearance in Boca Raton in Palm Beach County, a key site in the battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida presidential vote recount in 2000 that was decided in the Supreme Court.Even if Hillary doesn't push the issue, this is still a potential thorn in Sen. Obama's side. If he doesn't fight hard to seat that delegation, how will he have any credibility when he tells Floridians that he'll fight for them? People will correctly ask why they should trust him.
Floridians "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she told supporters. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished." "The people who voted did nothing wrong and it would be wrong to punish you," she added.
If people don't trust you, you're going nowhere fast.
Posted Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 23-May-08 07:39 AM
Gary:
The more interesting thing to keep an eye on is Michigan. While the Democrats have owned Michigan for years in the presidential race Obama is going to have trouble:
* He took his name off the ballot. Mccain can appear and tell the people of Michigan that Obama didn't want to ask for their vote in the past.
* The only reason why the state went Democrat in 2006 was the down year for Republicans. Mccain when he appears can point out what the Democrats have done to Michigan is what they will do on a larger scale to the country.
* Furthermore Mccain when he appears in the state can ask if the Democrats are really the party that wants every vote to count how come he was in Michigan in January getting votes that counted to help him get the Republican nomination while the Democrats said Michigan was worthless.
Florida was likely to be Republican anyway the things that you wrote increase the size of the margin. What the Democrats did to Michigan puts Michigan into play for Mccain.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Oil Executives to Democrats: Let's Open the Spigots
Wednesday, Democrats tried grilling oil executives on the high price of oil. Instead, oil executives turned the heat up on Democrats, with a bit of help from Republican senators like Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch. Here's a noteable quote from John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips :
John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.Peter Robinson, vice chairman of Chevron, had this to say:
"We must work together to find a real solution," said Lowe. " U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets ."
"Americans need companies that can effectively compete for access to new resources. Punitive measures that weakened us in the face of international competition are the wrong measures."The most devastating testimony, in my opinion, was given by John Hofmeister. Here's part of what he said :
"If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by 2 (million) to 3 million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny," Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister told a Senate panel today.Here's more of what he said :
Granting greater accesss, Hofmeister argued, coupled with Congress' previous actions to increase use of renewable fuels and to raise fuel mileage requirements, could help avoid awkward scenarios in which U.S. leaders ask producing nations to produce more and get "an unresponsive reply."
While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.Yet Democrats refuse to believe that limiting access to oil reserves has any effect on the prices consumers pay:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments , with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, accused the corporate executives of ignoring the plight of people suffering because of high energy prices. "Where is your corporate conscience?" he asked them.I guess I shouldn't expect a bunch of socialists to understand principles like supply and demand. Your average high schooler probably understands those principles far better than these socialist idiots.
"The issue is simple," said Leahy. "People we represent are hurting, the companies you represent are profiting."
I'd further argue that Durbin's and Leahy's statements are designed to scapegoat the oil companies so that people won't notice that the Senate Democrats are responsible for this disaster. If they wouldn't have put so many of the oil reserves off-limits over the last 12+ years, we'd be flush for the next generation. If they didn't filibuster the drilling in ANWR; if they hadn't put the shale oil reserves of the Rockies off-limits; if they hadn't banned the building of new refineries, if they hadn't let oil companies replace wells when other wells dried up, we wouldn't be facing the problems that we're currently facing.
If you want the Democrats' Energy Bill in summary, it's this simple: they want to limit supply while taxing the oil companies. When prices spike, then Democrats act like they aren't responsible. If these dipshits don't figure supply and demand pretty soon, Democrats will be responsible for the pain we feel at the pumps. If that happens, rest assured that voters will take their anger out on them at the polls.
It's a fate they richly deserve.
Posted Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 22-May-08 09:15 AM
This is the issue that saves the day for Republicans. The entire Republican Congressional and Senate delegations should assemble on the steps of the Capitol under a banner that reads "Republicans- The Party That Wants To Drill For Oil". There should be an Energy Contract With America that includes the end to ethanol tariffs, building nuclear power plants, converting coal into gasoline and building new refineries. This will all take time, of course, but we should dump the enviro-nuts and start NOW!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-May-08 10:18 AM
Skep, I was just saying that to the Lady Logician. We're in total agreement on this.
Simply run on bringing down oil prices. That's all you'd need this year.
Comment 3 by nerdbert at 22-May-08 02:24 PM
Leahy understands supply and demand. He simply ignores it to score political points.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-May-08 03:32 PM
Leahy understands supply and demand. He simply ignores it to score political points.
I used to think that. Now I'm not certain he isn't so demented from serving in the Senate that he's paralyzed from the neck up.
Comment 5 by gsinvestor at 06-Jun-08 12:58 PM
If the Republicans really wanted to fix the gas price problem the President would not only begin releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve, but more importantly stop putting it in the reserve. Right now that, not opening ANWR, is what is putting marginal price pressure on oil.
Governance By Constitutional Amendment: Is This a Better Way?
One of the constitutional amendment questions that made it onto the Minnesota ballot would raise the state's sales tax, with the additional funds being dedicated the outdoors and the arts. Here's the bill's specifics :
The Legislature passed a bill early in the session calling for a constitutional amendment ballot vote this fall on spending for wildlife, clean water and the arts. If the amendment passes, 3/8 of 1 percent would be added to the state sales tax. One-third would go to wildlife habitat, another third to clean water and another third to parks, trails and arts.to their credit, the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board calls it for what it is:
We also are disappointed (but not surprised) legislators approved asking voters this fall to decide whether to raise the state sales tax and use the increase to provide dedicated funding for the outdoors and arts. Legislators are elected to make choices about how to spend public money. This amendment lets them off the hook and in the long run limits the state's fiscal flexibility.EXACTLY!!! Thank you, St. Cloud Times. Why elect legislators who want the Constitution to make all the decisions? This principle was at work last year when the DFL wanted inflation factored into budget forecasts. That's why Gov. Pawlenty vetoed that bill. Opponents of the DFL legislation argued that it set things up so that once something was appropriated, it was forever justified as an expenditure. Toughtful people simple said "No way."
If legislators want budgeting by constitutional amendment, then we might as well do away with the legislature. At minimum, we should shrink it to a unicameral legislature.
Frankly, this amendment will be defeated and it won't even be close. Don't be surprised if it loses 65-35 or worse. While outdoorsmen will like the concept, I don't think they'll like the sales tax increase portion of it. This would've had a shot at passing if they'd kept the sales tax set but with a portion of those revenues going to the outdoors.
The other thing that will doom this is dedicated funding to the arts. I don't think there's a great hunger out there to improve funding for the arts, at least not outside the Twin Cities. Whatever hunger there is for that funding is offset by the disgust with tax increases.
Right now, tax increases rank as low in popularity as $4 a gallon gas. BTW, that's the headwind that DFL freshmen will be running into this election. Don't expect that to be popular with voters getting crunched with higher taxes and high gas prices.
Posted Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:15 AM
No comments.
The Path to Retaking the House?
I don't know whether this idea is enough but it's worth thinking about. Here's what a commenter said that I think is worth considering:
This is the issue that saves the day for Republicans. The entire Republican Congressional and Senate delegations should assemble on the steps of the Capitol under a banner that reads "Republicans- The Party That Wants To Drill For Oil". There should be an Energy Contract With America that includes the end to ethanol tariffs, building nuclear power plants, converting coal into gasoline and building new refineries. This will all take time, of course, but we should dump the enviro-nuts and start NOW!With people extremely upset with high oil prices, people are looking for a comprehensive solution. They know that alternative energy isn't the only thing that's needed. They also know that conservation alone isn't the solution. It's my strong belief that people understand that we also need to increase our production of domestic oil. The best shortterm solution to energy prices is drilling domestically for oil. It isn't subject to the production preferences of the Saudis, Venezuelans and Russians. It's entirely within our control. Powerline has a great post up about the oil executives' testimony . This should be the wake up call to Republicans. Here's testimony that will wake people up fast:
John Lowe pointed out:BINGO!!! Here's what John Hofmeister said in his testimony:I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.
We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.Based on Democrats' statements yesterday, there isn't proof that they think that the principles of supply and demand doing apply to oil prices. It's almost as if they think that oil prices should come down just by them talking about it.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
Frankly, people are fed up with high oil prices. Anyone offering a plan that includes increasing production will be seen positively. The Democrats' plan is too focused on conservation and alternative energy products. It's hostile to the oil and coal industries. People don't like oil executives because blue collar types don't like executives of any industry. We shouldn't confuse that with them not agreeing with increasing oil production.
If Republicans were to run on an agenda of increasing oil production and national security, I'd bet they wouldn't be headed for electoral defeat. I'd bet that they could do better than expected, much better than expected.
Posted Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 23-May-08 07:23 AM
You know there are two points to be made about how silly the Democrats are on this issue:
One, they complain about record oil company profits. A key factor in their record profits as their testimony has shown that while they want to go out and spend money to drill for oil what's stopping them? If they are drilling for oil their profits will go down.
Two, Rush did a great job yesterday with Charles Summer on this. Summer said that a million barrells per day from ANWAR a couple of weeks ago was worthless. Yesterday he was saying that if Saudi Arbia increased their oil production by a million barrells the price of gasoline will drop by over $.50. Summer has set the price!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Heavy Metal
An old friend sent me something this afternoon that's MUST READING. It's an article about the heaviest element known to man. Here's the study in its entirety:
A new addition to "Chemistry's Periodic Table Research" has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neuron, 25 assistant neurons, 88 deputy neurons and 198 assistant deputy neurons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.I appreciate my friend John's email. We've seen this inertia at work the last 4 years. The past 4 years have, in fact, worked exactly according to the process described in John's email.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every action with which it comes into contact. A minimal amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neurons and deputy neurons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neurons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass!
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
If a smart scientist ever discovers a way to vaporize large quantities of morons, we'd have a near-perfect world. Unfortunately, there isn't any incentive for scientists to invent such a vaporization process since that would give them fewer things to study in the long term.
Posted Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 22-May-08 09:42 PM
Good one!
