September 16-17, 2008
Sep 16 08:22 Joe Biden: Proof That Airheads Shouldn't Be VP Nominee Sep 16 09:09 House Democrats' Latest Non-energy Bill DOA in Senate Sep 16 11:10 Mike Pence's Indispensible Leadership Sep 16 11:38 Debate Schedule Set Sep 16 14:41 Franken & Rangel: Birds of a Feather? Sep 16 16:57 Corruption & Partisanship: A Disgusting Combination Sep 17 01:14 Media Alert Sep 17 02:54 Pelosi's Spin vs. Reality Sep 17 12:30 Blue Dog Democrats Vote With Kucinich, McDermott, Conyers
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Joe Biden: Proof That Airheads Shouldn't Be VP Nominee
Joe Biden, aka Slow Joe 2.0, is living proof of why airheads shouldn't be tapped as the VP nominee. This speech offers abundant proof that Sen. Obama should've ignored experience and went with someone talented. Listen to this long list of whining complaints:
We've seen eight straight months of job losses. Nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance. Average incomes down, while the price of everything, from gas to groceries, has skyrocketed. A military stretched thin from two wars and multiple deployments.It's insulting to hear Slow Joe say that "we've seen this movie before." Clearly, John McCain has worked with Democrats so often that it threatened his chance at the nomination. Saying that we've seen a man of John McCain's vigor, honor, distinct history and maverick attitude before is the ultimate insult.
A nation more polarized than I've ever seen in my career. And a culture in Washington where the very few wealthy and powerful have a seat at the table and everybody else is on the menu.
Eight years later, we have another Republican nominee who's telling us the exact same thing:
This time it will be different, it really will. This time he's going to put country before party, to change the tone, reach across the aisle, change the Republican Party, change the way Washington works.
We've seen this movie before, folks . But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original.
If we forget this history, we're going to be doomed to repeat it, with four more just like the last eight, or worse. If you're ready for four more years of George Bush, John McCain is your man.
Just as George Herbert Walker Bush was nicknamed "Bush 41" and his son is known as "Bush 43," John McCain could easily become known as "Bush 44."
The campaign a person runs says everything about the way they'll govern. The McCain-Palin campaign has decided to bet the house on the politics perfected by Karl Rove. Those tactics may be good at squeaking by in an election, but they are bad if you want to lead one nation, indivisible.
Obama-Biden haven't figured out the path forward. Obama's team of advisers thought that they'd only have to say hopeandchange during the primaries, then say McSame during the general election campaign to win. McCain's picking Gov. Palin totally trashed that meme. The "Bush's third term" storyline went totally out the window. (Frankly, I never thought it'd be that productive. President Bush isn't popular but he isn't hated except on the BDS-afflicted Left.)
John McCain just doesn't seem to understand what middle class people are going through today. I don't doubt that he cares. He just doesn't think that we have any responsibility to help people who are hurting.Here's another insult directed at John McCain. In fact, after reading the speech, it's just one insult after another. My hope is that they give this idiot a bigger microphone. His angry tone is probably turning people off at every stop. Clearly his audience loves it.
That said, I'm betting that people reading the newspaper account are having a different reaction.
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:27 AM
No comments.
House Democrats' Latest Non-energy Bill DOA in Senate
While Nancy Pelosi works frantically to cobble together enough support for their latest version of a non-energy energy bill, Mary Landrieu has already declared the bill DOA in the Senate . This is how Sen. Landrieu specifically delivered that message:
Even if the bill reaches the Senate, he said, the bill is in trouble, given strong opposition by Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), who calls it "dead on arrival" since it fails to provide revenue sharing between the states and federal government. "The Senate will never pass a bill without revenue sharing, in my view," she was quoted as saying.The House bill hinges on that provision. Ms. Pelosi won't sign off on a bill that gives financial incentives to states to opt in. The minute the bill has financial incentives in it is the minute that states opt in. It's estimated that Virginia would get an estimated $200 million annually by opting in. The chances that they wouldn't opt in are minimal at best. Louisiana would likely get a healthy chunk of cash from such a bill, too. There's no way that Bobby Jindal would bypass that type of cash flow.
Putting out his best spin, Rep. Nick Rahall, (D-WVA), offered this timid defense:
Rahall has defended the bill's provision that permits states to permit drilling within 50 miles of a coastline, saying even though no revenues are pledged to them, benefits would be manifested in jobs creation, additional equipment purchases and the like. Moreover, the measure encompasses renewable and alternative sources of energy, with a strong emphasis on clean coal technology, Rahall said last weekend.TRANSLATION: We don't want states benefiting directly. We only want them benefiting indirectly. (Doesn't that sound alot like trickle down economics?)
If you take a deep breath, you'll notice that there aren't alot of worthwhile options available to the Democratic majority. That's what happens when you're on the 30 percent side of a 70-30 issue that's also the biggest issue with voters.
Brian Schubert, communications director for the House Republican Conference, wasn't letting Democrats off the hook:
"We called repeatedly on Rahall and Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to hold an open, full and fair debate and vote, up or down (on the Republican measure) and they refused," he said. "The House plan would leave 88 percent of America's offshore energy reserves under permanent lock and key."Nancy Pelosi wants to avoid voting on the AEA. The minute the AEA is offered as an amendment is the minute the Democrats' levee of obstructionism breaks. Once that happens, I'll bet that alot of scared Democratic freshmen will vote for the AEA rather than risk defeat this November.
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:11 AM
No comments.
Mike Pence's Indispensible Leadership
Anyone who's read this blog knows that I'm a big fan of Rep. Mike Pence. That's because he's a fighter who picks the right side of the biggest fights. Energy policy is a perfect example of his leadership. This morning, Rep. Pence delivered this speech in the House Chamber:
The American people are hurting. They're struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices and in that cause, Republicans have been fighting for a comprehensive energy bill that includes more drilling. Three-quarters of Americans agree with us.Rep. Pence is right in calling the Democrats' plan a charade. As I posted here , it's such a bad bill that one of the Democrats' vulnerable senators, Mary Landrieu, has said that any House bill that doesn't include revenue-sharing with the states is DOA. If Speaker Pelosi insists on pushing Nick Rahall's bill, then she's taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach.
Just last week, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they would bring an energy bill to the floor that includes more drilling and now they say Republicans have to take 'yes' for an answer.
Well, I would suggest to my countrymen that they look at the fine print. The drill-nothing Democrat Congress has brought a bill that actually includes basically 'drill-almost-nothing' provisions.
They say 'yes' to drilling, but not in Alaska, not in the Eastern Gulf and not within 50 miles . They say 'yes' to drilling but states can decide, even though they get absolutely no revenues for choosing to drill. I guess states are just going to allow drilling out of the goodness of their hearts. They say 'yes' to drilling but litigation rules will allow environmental lawyers to tie up all leases from the very day they're filed.
I say to my House Democrat colleagues from my heart, on behalf of our constituents who are struggling under record gasoline prices: 'End the charade! Stop playing politics with American energy independence! Bring a full and fair debate to this floor, and we will achieve a bipartisan result.
That won't fly with the American people.
They want lower gas prices and affordable heating and electric bills. In fact, it isn't that they want it. It's what they demand. If that can be achieved with bipartisanship, that's fine with Main Street America. If Pelosi's Democrats take the obstructionist path, though, then Main Street America is perfectly comfortable with breaking out the brickbats and giving obstructionist Democrats their comeuppance to get things done.
BTW, it's Democrats standing in the way because Republicans, for once, have paid attention to We The People. They know that opposing We The People on this important of an issue is suicide. Rank-and-file Democrats have figured that out, too. It's just that Speaker Pelosi won't let them distance themselves from this charade of an energy policy.
We need to thank Rep. Pence for his vocal, principled leadership on the American Energy Act and in contributing to the House Oil Party. That's a big reason why Republicans are energized (pun intended) and fighting back. We've finally got a group of Republicans with real spines.
The House Oil Party and Sen. McCain's picking Gov. Palin have done tons to nspire Republicans and conservatives nationwide. If Sen. McCain, Gov. Palin and Rep. Pence keep pushing the current agenda, this could revolutionize the so-called GOP Brand.
BTW, isn't this morning a good time to contribute to the NRCC ? After all, they've been fighting the good fight. Shouldn't we fight with them?
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:15 AM
No comments.
Debate Schedule Set
I just got this email outlining the presidential debate schedule and format:
Debate Schedule Is SetThat's the earliest I've heard of debates agreed to. The CW is that the debates will decide November's winner. Based on what I've seen in my adult life, rarely have they changed the outcome. That might change this year because Sen. Obama didn't do well in the debates once they were pared down to Sen. Obama and Hillary.
Sept 16, 2008
The campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain announced they have formally accepted the lineup of presidential debates this fall.
"The campaigns have come to the earliest agreement on presidential debates reached in any general election in recent history," the joint statement said.
The campaigns said they also accepted the Commission on Presidential Debates' rules on third-party candidates, guidelines that make it unlikely that either Libertarian Bob Barr or independent Ralph Nader will be included unless they get a large and unexpected rise in the polls. The rules require a candidate to reach at least 15 percent in an average of five national public opinion polls.
The debates are all scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Eastern and will last 90 minutes:
First Debate
Sept. 26 at University of Mississippi
Topic: Foreign policy and national security
Moderator: Jim Lehrer of PBS
Staging: Podiums
Format: Broken into nine 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment, then facilitate a discussion for the remaining 5 minutes.
Second Debate
Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville.
Moderator: Tom Brokaw of NBC
Staging: Town hall
Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the Internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute.
Third Debate
Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
Topic: Domestic and economic policy
Moderator:Bob Schieffer of CBS
Staging: Seated at a table
Format: Same as first presidential debate, plus each candidate will get a 90-second closing statement.
I know that Sen. Obama is great from a teleprompter but it's another story when he doesn't have access to that crutch.
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:39 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Sep-08 03:11 PM
It also sounds, from the format, like Obama will not be able to simply memorize pat answers to most of the questions. He's going to catch some things he's not prepared for, and from what I've seen, he can't think on his feet. Part of that is he doesn't know which of his arsenal of lies to use in a given situation.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-08 04:33 PM
Jerry, You're exactly right. The townhall format should be especially troubling for him.
I agree with you that part of his problem is not knowing which arsenal to draw on. The other part that's troubling for him is that he's simply clueless on most issues. Get him away from hopeychangeyfuture & he's alot like a deer in the headlights.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 16-Sep-08 05:32 PM
when was the VP Debate again where Sarah kicks butt.
I think the Obama team agreed to the format because the debates are in order their worst to their best.
the first they expect to lose.
the second Obama has proven he's in trouble especially if Brokaw doesn't give him standard questions which Obama can answer.
the third is the one they expect to win and making it last will create the impression that he's presidential.
Of course that assumes he can maintain the illusion the economy is an issue that works for him.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Franken & Rangel: Birds of a Feather?
Based on this press release , thinking people wonder if Charlie Rangel and Al Franken are birds of a feather. Charlie Rangel and Al Franken have had tax troubles. Now there's another connection:
Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey today called on DFL U.S. Senate Al Franken to immediately return the $10,000 in campaign contributions he has accepted from fellow New York tax cheat Charlie Rangel after it was revealed that Rangel never declared $75,000 in taxes on rental property.Why would Charlie Rangel's PAC contribute to Al Franken's floundering campaign? Here's more details of Rangel's contribution:
Al Franken Has Taken $10,000 From New York Congressman Charlie Rangel's PAC. On June 27, 2008, Al Franken took $10,000 from New York Congressman Charlie Rangel's National Leadership PAC. (Itemized Receipts, Al Franken For Senate, July 2008 FEC Quarterly Report, June 27, 2008 )That money connection is likely why Mr. Franken hasn't called for Chairman Rangel's resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee until the investigation is completed.
Based on Mr. Franken's actions, he's a totally self-centered individual. What other explanation is there for a man that negotiated a new contract for himself while the Gloria Wise scandal was making headlines? Mr. Franken knew that Air America wasn't making money. Mr. Franken knew that Air America wasn't meeting its payroll obligations to other employees.
That didn't stop him from negotiating a raise from approximately $1 million to approximately $1.7 million.
It isn't a stretch to think that Franken won't return the Rangel contribution because he's only worried about what he wants and what he needs. Here's Dictionary.com's defininition of elitism:
consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored groupI'd say that that definition fits Mr. Franken as perfectly as it fits Chairman Rangel. What's amazing is that neither has an impressive list of accomplishments to justify their thinking that highly of themselves. I'd defy anyone to rattle off the 3 most influential pieces of legislation that Chairman Rangel has passed in his career. Can anyone tell me what exceptional thing Al Franken has done in his lifetime?
Based on their lack of exceptionalism and their penchant of not paying taxes, I'd say ample proof exists that Chairman Rangel and Mr. Franken are birds of a feather.
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:45 PM
No comments.
Corruption & Partisanship: A Disgusting Combination
Last week, Speaker Pelosi sent Steny Hoyer out to wave the white flag of defeat on energy. Or so we thought. This is what Hoyer said then:
"[Republicans] will have the opportunity to offer their alternative, yes," Hoyer said in response to a question about how the energy bill will be introduced. "We understand that their motion to recommit will be their Republican alternative."Rep. Hoyer's words no longer apply. Ms. Pelosi has reverted back to her tyrannical behavior. The Democrats' new 'Drilling Bill' is being brought up under a closed rule again:
Late last night, the Democrat Rules Committee decided to allow debate on ZERO amendments to the Democrats' new energy gimmick bill. It is a closed bill, so no amendments can be offered, and no compromise can be reached. They made this decision over Republican objections, in the dead of night, and less than 12 hours before the House would begin consideration of the bill.That's a complete turnaround from their original promise. Democrats have just just told America that their word is worthless. Their credibility, which was already circling the drain, just dropped lower. It's almost vanished.
Here are 3 definitions of corruption :
- perversion of integrity.
- corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
- debasement or alteration, as of language or a text
"With today's floor debate, Speaker Pelosi has designed yet another cynical strategy that enables vulnerable Democrats to claim they support more American energy back in their districts but then vote against it here in Washington. In rigging today's debate on the Speaker's latest 'no energy' bill, Democrats have made an open and honest debate impossible for those who support an 'all of the above' approach to reduce fuel costs. In fact, last night at the Rules Committee, Republicans offered a proposal to open up today's debate to enable a real vote on our 'all of the above' American Energy Act, and Democrats voted it down. The Majority has even gone so far as to begin debate on their sham bill today while several Members of the Texas delegation are still home with their constituents, helping in the recovery effort after Hurricane Ike.Speaker Pelosi and her minions aren't corrupt in the sense that they're involved in a major scandal. What they are is utterly dishonest and untrustworthy. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them with both arms broken and a bad back.
"Written behind closed doors, with their special interest allies who are on the record in support of higher gas prices, and finally released to the public in the dark of night, the Democrats' latest 'no energy' bill once again defies the will of the American people who support a comprehensive approach to lower gas prices. This Democratic bill permanently locks away some 88 percent of the best American oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. It blocks valuable and job-creating energy production on Alaska's North Slope and Inter-Mountain West. And it stops efforts to produce more and cheaper energy through emissions-free nuclear and coal-to-liquids technologies. Rather than an 'all of the above' approach, this bill is very nearly 'none of the above.' The American people have been waiting for months for this Democratic Congress to give them a meaningful, honest vote on more American energy production, but instead, Speaker Pelosi has served-up a legislative hoax and a debate rigged to once again defy their will."
What makes this that much more vile is that they're doing this because their environmental extremist allies gave them their orders :
Less than a week after hearing delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul chanting "Drill here, drill now," members of Minnesota's congressional delegation were getting a different message from the Sierra Club.Let there be no doubt about this: Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have given the proverbial finger to Main Street while siding with K Street extremists. That's unacceptable. PERIOD.
The environmental organization, joined by a handful of other Mankato-area residents, said drilling offshore and in other ecologically sensitive areas would do little to solve the nation's energy problem and would distract from real solutions.
The message of the press event in Jackson Park was aimed at Democratic Congressman Tim Walz and Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, and the Sierra Club planned to deliver the point personally to the local offices of both lawmakers. It comes as Congress is reconvening after the August recess and political conventions and is under pressure to take aim at high gas prices.
"The vote coming up on oil is one of the key ones we face," said John Hottinger, who represented Mankato and St. Peter in the state Senate until retiring two years ago and is now on the Sierra Club's state board of directors.
The Sierra Club's views on energy production stand in opposition to Main Street's view of increasing energy production. That's because their agenda is warped :
- Distribute literature and talk to your neighbors.
- Find creative ways to protest pollution.
- Take your child to a political rally.
- Take a leadership role in a chapter or campaign.
Let's bring this information back to this bill. Ms. Pelosi shut down true deliberations on this legislation because she's wedded to the environmental extremists' agenda. The fact that Main Street is suffering with high gas prices is irrelevant. The fact that Main Street will be suffering through high heating costs this winter is equally irrelevant.
When a political organization puts their allies' wishlist ahead of We The People, it's time to put a halt to that movement. I'd argue that the Sierra Club and other like-minded organizations have joined forces with the House Democratic leadership and that they've put meeting Main Street's needs down the list of priorities.
That's got to end ASAP. We can't afford Ms. Pelosi set the agenda any longer.
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:08 PM
No comments.
Media Alert
Today at noon CT, I will be participating in a discussion on the limits of using military force on the BBC's World Have Your Say.
Specifically, the subject is scheduled to be about when collateral damage is so high that military force isn't morally justifiable.
Let's use Haditha as a specific example. On November 19, 2005, 24 Iraqis were killed. Eight of those killed were identified as known insurgents. While it's truly tragic that 16 innocent civilians were killed, the 3/1 Marines killed alot of insurgents. Eventually, Haditha, a city with a population of approximately 100,000 , was rid of insurgents. As much as I don't want to sound coldhearted, can't a respectable argument be made that, from a big picture perspective, the people of Haditha are better off because of that firefight?
Which is more justified? Letting insurgents force 100,000 people live in fear while opting not to kill the 16 innocent civilians that the insurgents used as human shields? Or accepting 16 innocent victims in order to bring tranquility to a city of 100,000 people?
From my pespective, I'll pick the latter rather than the former. It would be a difficult, heartwrenching decision emotionally. It would be a straightforward decision intellectually.
Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Sep-08 08:09 AM
What you have is essentially a hostage situation, with the terrorists as the hostage-taker. You know that, left alone, this criminal will, or already has, torture and kill his hostages. Every attempt would be made to save the hostages but, in the end, the criminal has to be stopped-- killed if necessary-- and if a few of the hostages (16 out of 100,000) die in the crossfire, that's unfortunate. It is NOT the fault of the "police" in cases like this.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Sep-08 08:11 AM
Exactly right, Jerry.
Pelosi's Spin vs. Reality
Tuesday evening, Democrats passed another non-energy bill masquerading as an energy bill. Immediately afterwards, Nancy Pelosi was spinning what had happened:
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill "represents a new direction in energy policy" and a "bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil" by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.I'd like hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how opening a tiny sliver of the OCS while increasing taxes on oil companies will give the oil companies an incentive to increase production.
Speaker Pelosi says that this bill "represents a new direction in energy policy." Perhaps Ms. Pelosi can explain why House Democrats had to pass a second energy bill after passing one about this time last year.
Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices.Boehner is right. This bill isn't about setting us on the path to independence from foreign oil. This bill is only about political cover. That's the worst kind of bill. The bad news for Pelosi's Democrats is that the Right Blogosphere knows that this bill is a total scam. We know that the bill doesn't provide a financial incentive to open up drilling. We know that this legislation was purposely designed that way so that states wouldn't opt into the plan.
"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason...so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."
What's worse is that we know that this bill is meaningless. We know that because, according to Mary Landrieu, the Senate won't adopt legislation if it doesn't include a revenue-sharing provision. We know that this bill doesn't have that provision because of how Nick Rahall defended it :
Rahall has defended the bill's provision that permits states to permit drilling within 50 miles of a coastline, saying even though no revenues are pledged to them, benefits would be manifested in jobs creation, additional equipment purchases and the like. Moreover, the measure encompasses renewable and alternative sources of energy, with a strong emphasis on clean coal technology, Rahall said last weekend.It's worth noting that this is just the latest in "new direction" legislation passed by Pelosi's Democrats. Thus far, their "new direction" legislation hasn't been met with high job approval ratings for Pelosi and her minions.
Ms. Pelosi and her minions have had such little impact on people's lives that their approval ratings are in Nixon territory.
The only benchmarks that energy legislation that matters are easily identified:
1) Will the legislation bring down gas prices?
2) Will the legislation bring down the cost of heating a home?
If it doesn't meet those two tests, then the bill is junk.
Even before the House vote, the White House said President Bush was prepared to veto the measure should it reach his desk. An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.Thank You, Mr. President. Thank you for bringing sanity to the table. Thank you for telling Democrats that they'll have to put together a real energy bill that expands drilling. Thank you for sending the signal to Senate Republicans that the Gang of 20 legislation has to be serious legislation that meets the aforementioned criteria. That's if it's ever written.
We The People demand that the House and Senate write legislation that actually helps We The People. Anything less is unacceptable.
Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:57 AM
No comments.
Blue Dog Democrats Vote With Kucinich, McDermott, Conyers
Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner asked whether Blue Dog Democrats would vote for H R 6899 , Speaker Pelosi's latest non-energy energy bill. The results are in and they tell quite the tale. Here are all of the Blue Dog Democrats voting for this non-energy energy bill:
Arcuri, Baca, Bean, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boswell, Boyd (FL), Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Davis, Lincoln, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gordon, Harman, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holden, Mahoney (FL), Matheson, Melancon, McIntyre, Patrick Murphy, Michaud, Moore (KS), Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Scott (GA), Space, Thompson (MS), Tanner and Wilson (OH)Of the 53 BDD's, 42 voted for H.R. 6899. Only John Barrow and Jim Marshall voted against it. That means that 80 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats voted the same way as such environmental extremists as Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, George Miller and Jim McDermott.
What's really gotta hurt the BDD's is this quote from their intrepid leader :
"We're not trying to give incentives to drill, we're giving incentives to invest in renewables and natural gas that will take us where we need to go," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters before the vote.I hope that the NRCC is paying attention. They should be making videos as we speak highlighting that quote. Anytime one of these representatives says that they voted to increase drilling, the video should run with Ms. Pelosi's quote plastered on the screen for at least 5 seconds, followed by the representative saying that he/she voted for more drilling.
Personally, I'd love hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how that quote fits with this part of her official statement :
The legislation is a bold step forward, helping end our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national security. It launches a clean renewable energy future that creates new American jobs, expands domestic energy supply, including new offshore drilling, and invents and builds more efficient vehicles, buildings, homes, and infrastructure. It will lower costs to consumers and protect the interests of taxpayers. It is a comprehensive strategy, and the product of bipartisan compromise. It offers Republicans who want a comprehensive approach the choice to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share.Simply put, the bill doesn't increasing drilling in any meaningful way. The green energy options are years away. This isn't "a bold step forward." It's just more of the same. How is this appreciably different than the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that President Bush signed in 2007? Here's what the White House fact sheet says about EISA:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America's dependence on oil by:Neither bill does anything appreciable to increase domestic oil supplies or shrink our dependence on foreign-bought oil. If that isn't the definition of same old, same old, then a definition doesn't exist for that cliche.
Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. Although the President proposed a more ambitious alternative fuels standard in his State of the Union Address, the RFS in the bill he signed today represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels.
Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue "attribute-based standards," which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.
The bill includes provisions to improve energy efficiency in lighting and appliances, as well as requirements for Federal agency efficiency and renewable energy use that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example:
The bill will require all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products or products designated under the Energy Department's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) by the end of Fiscal Year 2013.
The bill will update the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to set new appliance efficiency standards that will save Americans money and energy. The Act amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
The bill will establish an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings (OHPGB) in the U.S. General Services Administration. This office will promote green building technology implementation in Federal buildings.
Here's the graphic on Ms. Pelosi's Speaker website:
The last bullet point says that this bill will produce "greater energy efficiency and conservation." for the sake of this discussion, let's say that that's true. The next question I'd ask is whether this bill has better efficiency provisions than the efficiency provisions in the American Energy Act. My bet is that they aren't.
This bill isn't going anywhere. President Bush said that he'll veto it if it reaches his desk. That isn't likely because it's likely that the bill won't be considered by the Senate :
Even if the bill reaches the Senate, he said, the bill is in trouble, given strong opposition by Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), who calls it "dead on arrival" since it fails to provide revenue sharing between the states and federal government. "The Senate will never pass a bill without revenue sharing, in my view," she was quoted as saying.Ms. Pelosi just said that the bill doesn't provide incentives for increased drilling.
Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:42 PM
No comments.
