GOP drills home its energy message in a sparse House
August 4th, 2008 – 11:41 AM by Kevin DiazWASHINGTON — No lights. No cameras. But plenty of action on the House floor Monday as more than a dozen Republican lawmakers, including Minnesota’s John Kline, came in during the August recess to demand a vote on oil and gas drilling.
“This is the most important issue confronting the American people,” Kline said in a phone interview from the Capitol. “We ought to be in session voting on this, not on vacation.”
With the microphones turned off, Kline and his allies found themselves raising their voices to be heard by spectators in the House gallery, normally filled with tourists this time of year.
Some applauded, Kline said.
Led by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the GOP lawmakers are trying to press House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders to allow a vote on offshore drilling. Pelosi ruled out the idea on Sunday, as she has on previous days, although presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he’d be open to a compromise.
With gasoline prices hovering just under $4 at the pump in many places, Republican lawmakers see an opening to create some space between Democrats and voters. Hence the GOP takeover of the otherwise vacant House floor, where they vow to maintain a presence throughout the five-week congressional recess.
The campaign of former Watertown, Minn., Mayor Steve Sarvi, Kline’s DFL opponent this fall, put out a statement suggesting that the Republicans are carrying water for big oil companies and that “no amount of showboating on the House floor will change that.”
While the Republican protesters say they are maintaining a sense of decorum in the House, some of the ordinary rules have fallen by the wayside. Ordinarily, all floor speeches are addressed to the House speaker, but since she is gone, Kline and Co. are literally playing to the House.
217 Responses to "GOP drills home its energy message in a sparse House"
Sigh.. If only this meant something. This is right up there with Rieds “non adjornment” of the senate earlier. Brings some media coverage, but no substance.
Repubs like to “debate” when there is no opposition or opposing views presented, and the MSM will be happy to carry water for this Repub stunt on behalf of BigOil, we’ll see.
It’s nice to see the ridiculous Colonel Klink doin’ his part in this conservative charade—but where’s Darlin’ Michele, the Biker Babe of Boneheaded Repub Boys? Getting outfitted in her leather riding-wear in the Ladies Room?
The name of the game here is for BigOil to be be able to lock up some more drilling rights at giveaway prices while the two Repub oil t*rds are still squatting in the WH. BigOil has hasn’t the slightest intention of commencing “drilling” even in the acres of leases it already has.
Repubs are experts at misleading the rubes, enabling BigOil and having their pockets lined by fossil fuel campaign cah—that’s what’s driving this latest clown show. Deception and corruption, thy name is “conservatism”.
Those poor oil companies need all the help they can get.
BushAmericans have been destroyed by giant unregulated corporations, yet they still—still!—think the corporate bosses really have the public’s best interests in mind. And they keep supporting the worst corporate party in history.
It’s a real sign of mental retardation.
So who’s obammanation carrying water for then, he’ll accept drilling now.
Parth, I think you should change your handle to something like “Cynicisian”. I do beleive you’d argue with any republican who claimed the sky was blue…
So, if it truly takes ten years for any new drilling to have an impact, could someone tell me just when we should start drilling, if not now, when we could/should use the additional output?? This “it’s not gonna help soon” attitude of Pelosi’s is getting old. Let’s hear when she would support drilling in the U.S. Never is a pipedream, and you cant change the current infrastructure to support alternative liquid fuels in 10 years, so when?
Or.. maybe it’s she who wants to help big oil out by controlling supply??
BTW, Just which party did the president who signed the executive order preventing this drilling belong too? Who’s daddy was it…Oh yeah…It was the other ‘Big Oil” Bush..
Deception, thy name is partial brain, the confirmed cynic.
Kline is “sponsored” by the big oil companies, and never met an idea from the 1950s that he didn’t like.
Kent;
That make’s Jimmy Carter’s late 70’s ideas real current then.
Windfall profit tax didnt work then, and it wont this time. Probably have the same deterrent value it had then, prolonging the oil “crisis”
Sure is funny how those big oil stooges help out the big bad oil companies.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/markets/oil/index.htm?postversion=2008080412
Here’s a reason why offshore leases are more desireable than dry land. These deposits exist off both coasts, as well as the artic.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2003/01jan/gashydrates.cfm
It’s also where some of your windfall went. Although a lot was financed with govt money, U.S and Canadian.
Pelosi isn’t “helping” BigOil in the slightest by upholding the offshore ban, she’s simply protecting the embattled environment, which has precious few voices looking out for it anymore.
The drilling ban was imposed by Congress and was intended to protect fragile US coastlines from the certainty that they would be sh*tted up if widespread off shore drilling were allowed. There are millions of current acres of leases already in existence held by BigOil, which are calculated to have more oil under them than all the banned areas combined.
But BigOil won’t drill what it already has, it just wants more cheap “rights” to drill in future and thinks that now (during a weak dollar-generated oil crisis) is the time to get its bought-and-paid-for Repub stooges to force access to the fragile banned areas.
And conservative rubes eat it up hook, line and sinker, mostly because they hate “environmentalists” and delight in seeing them lose political battles, the actual environment be da*ned.
When will we drill the outer continental shelf? Hopefully never. We certainly shouldn’t drill it so that rich yahoos can simply burn it up in their absurd gas guzzlers.
I’d keep those areas off limits for another 50 years, at least. And the Arctic Refuge (ANWR) should be designated a permanent undrillable wildlife refuge, as it has been for eons.
Time for some “sacrifice”, Repubs, meaning actual changes in how you do things. There’s no choice, anyway, because opening every single possible area for drilling in the US will not have the slightest long-term effect on the implacable fact that we are running out of oil, pure and simple.
You can’t repeal Peak Oil. That’s the reality.
You really are entrenched arn’t you parth.
So explain how Pelosi’s postion hurts big oil by proping up prices by holding down supply. Worse yet, those higher prices go overseas, rather than in the U.S., where a guy might actually find a job in the oil industry.
Your short sightedness also ignores the potential of energy independence trough the use of gas hydrates.. No more fuel oil required for the NE….The gas comes straight through the pipe from the NC offshore rigs….. (well, maybe through a refinement process to remove the water crystals first)
Of course, we could start burning coal corn, and wood, if that floats your boat….No drilling required. Population reduction mandatory.
Probably should change that from “oil industry” to “energy industry” concerning the domestic jobs.
Well, gotta run, see ya later parth. Gonna jump in my big bad pickup and stop by my local SA to support my local conservative.
It’s been awhile since I’ve checked out BQ. When I do I usually just lurk, but something Les said caused me to think back to the Carter administration. I remember the “moral equivalent of war on energy” speech. I remember thinking: “Finally, a politician taking the long view.” ‘Course, then the Iranian hostage crisis happened, and a darn good thing it did, as it turned out, for Big Oil. More recently, in reverse, 9/11 happened, and a darn good thing it did for the current administration. What did they call it during the Clinton administration? Wag the Dog?
hopefully maxine and the gang of green libs get their way and the govt takes over the oil industry- then it will work better and cost less –right?
i think the govt should take over all businesses and just give the people allotments for what they feel we need. all of our income just goes to them and gets disbursed to everyone, some alot more than others though.
somehow, i think they’v e tried this process before- whats is called again?????????????????
sarcasm
I’m curious ot, is our energy policy working out all the great right now? I’m not advocating nationalizing the oil industry, but it seems to me the laws of supply and demand have been, at least, diluted when the subject is oil.
I worked out in Wyoming in the oil field back in ‘74. That was during the 1st “Oil Crisis”. I personally saw producing double-pumpers shut down, and left shut down all summer, while I was out there. Supply and demand had everything to do with it, just not in the traditional sense.
Les, I agree with you on the windfall profits tax - it failed in the 70s and ended up actually encouraging the importation of oil.
BUT you’re going after the Dems position on this issue rather than addressing it directly. It’s not my job (or Parthians) to defend what Pelosi wants. I’m simply saying give me a reason to get behind this “drill now” business. If the oil companies haev unexercised leases in areas that are known to have oil, why the he11 don’t they use them first?
Until someone can answer that intelligenty, I can’t get behind this idea.
Just because the oil companies have access to leased land, it doesn’t mean that it would make economic sense to drill there. The geologists working for the oil companies know more about where to find oil than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
Partian,
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate it.
Not only has Obama refused to wear the American flag lappel pin like all the other candidates, he now has painted over the American flag on his campaign jet! He is either extremely stupid or anti-American, or perhaps both.
Drilling is the winning ticket for the repubs this fall. McCain has shown the success of this strategy and the dems are running scared.
Larry Kudlow has a great article on how the dems are going to lose this fall.
“Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
While Republicans on the House floor shouted “vote, vote, vote” and “lower gas prices,” the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they’d overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied “no.” When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried “no,” “no,” and “no.”
Pelosi claiming she is doing it for the environment is the biggest lie ever. What other countries does she think that have a better drilling record than the USA? This is just another example of how the libs don’t support our country when they need to.
God bless the repubs!
Cash,
You are right about drilling being a winning ticket for the Republicans this fall. Nancy Pelosi and her refusal to even allow a vote on lifting the liberal ban is really hurting our economy and voters won’t forget this.
They should also press the problem of illegal immigration. Obama wants open borders and to give illegal aliens free health care, welfare, and drivers licenses for the crying out loud!
D2, why is it the responsibility of government to make sure the oil companies can drill where it makes economic sense? I don’t see why the government should go out of it’s way to ensure profitability for an industry that regularly sets record profits.
Exxon made $12 billion in the 2nd quarter - maybe they could invest some of that money into finding a way to make their current leases profitable. I don’t want my tax dollars going to some CEO who makes $200 million/year.
Sarge says:
“D2, why is it the responsibility of government to make sure the oil companies can drill where it makes economic sense?”
It’s not! Government just needs to get the hell out of the way and let the oil companies do their job of bringing us the energy we need to survive at a reasonable price. The liberal ban on domestic drilling is insane, and the United States is the only country denying ourselves our own natural resourses.
You don’t get it - we’re supposed to give them the right to drill somewhere else when they haven’t even drilled what we lease them? That’s bullsh1t.
Didn’t you read what Jay wrote? It’s not going to affect the price of gas anytime soon, and it may not ever affect the price. Stupid argument.
Drill your own land before getting a government handout for more. You’re really brainwashed into believing that these oil companies have your best interest at heart.
The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day by 2030. We use about 20 million barrels per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. [http://tinyurl.com/65ebvn]
This isn’t even worthy of a debate - this 1% difference in 20 years? I smell a rat.
SgtP, he’s brainwashed into believing everything the Republican rw smear mongers tell him.
And what about what Obama said about tire pressure and tune ups. Well, he’s right again!
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S.” Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tire. Using the website FuelEconomy.gov the estimated maximum fuel economy savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned–4%, replacing air filters–up to 10%, properly inflating tires–up to 3% and using the correct motor oil–1-2% for a total of 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day. However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune-ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%. So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the lower-48 outer continental shelf will increase by about 200,000 barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800,000 barrels per day, immediately.
And look who else said the same things that Obama did. Guess they’re all crazy too. Tire gauges for everyone!!
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and Charlie Crist, R-Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times “appealed to those with the real power to make change — average citizens — to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption.”
And those wacky folks at NASCAR.
“With gas prices now hovering around $3, smart drivers care. Savvy consumers are seeking to increase fuel economy and the life of their tires by paying more attention to those rubber objects that are attached to their vehicle […]
Tires that are underinflated by 6 to 7 pounds per square inch increase tire rolling resistance 10 percent or more, increase tread wear rates and tire fatigue. When a tire is underinflated, the tire’s road contact zone and cyclic stress level changes resulting in undesirable loss in tire and vehicle performance […]
With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.”
Oh and who was Obama talking to when he said that? Why it was a person at a town hall meeting who asked him a question about what individuals could do now instead of waiting for government to act.
hahahahaha. Faux News strikes again.
Last week, Fox News ran a segment with retired Gen. Tommy Franks celebrating the opening of a KFC in Fallujah, Iraq. There’s just one problem: A KFC spokesman says the restaurant is a fake.
Those crack fact checkers at Fox! All they had to do was call up KFC headquarters to verify it.
hahahahaha, oh really dora?
I guess you better tell the dod its fake too, because it is on their website.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=&g2_itemId=5454
but i bet dora knows better than the govt. let see if she admits a mistake.
where’d you get that from, the wonkette, didn’t you? well, i will believe the dod website over your left wing sh*thole news spots.
It is fake OT - you can tell that the logo/lettering is all non-standard and f-ed up. The DoD folks are mistaken. Why don’t you call the KFC people and find out if it’s real. I’ll bet you 100 to 1 that it’s fake. He11 they don’t even have KFC in places like Kazakstan or Georgia - why would they put one in Falluja of all places?
Better yet, here’s the KFC website list of countries they’re in - where’s Iraq??? (hint: Iraq is in ASIA)
Not sure how much time you spent outside of Somalia, but there’s fake sh1t all over the world - especially in 3rd world countries. I have a picture of me and my buddy standing in front of a “Mike Tyson” gas station in the Kyrgyz Republic. The people who worked there swore up and down that it was owned by Mike Tyson.
There is also a “Makdonalds Gamburger Shop” - (with a G) — in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. In Azerbaijan, they had Princess Diana champagne and Monica Lewinsky candy bars…They also had Guns N Roses vodka that came in a pop can. Someone should really make a book of this stuff - it’s hillarious.
Dora’s right on the money this time OT. Do you really think we should trust the government OT? That sounds awfully soc1a1st to me!
You should be more careful next time you try laughing at someone like that…tsk tsk.
Here’s my favorite brand of laundry detergent in the whole world: BARF
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/254689286_634f73ce22.jpg
“Barf” means “Snow” in Farsi.
I haven’t researched it, neither has Dora, neither have you. If anyone wants to put in the time, go ahead, it is not that important to me.
What is important is that dora throws a reader’s post form the wonkette (left wing bs site) and post it here as “fact”. it sure says alot about her other post’s “facts”. where is parthian spewing words like “left wing trough”, etc now?
i googled kfc iraq, and the only 2 sites that came back with dora’s view was the wonkette and some other tripe. everything else said it was true.
you should be more careful next time you try correcting someone too. your “experiences” are not facts to people either. you saying this is true because you witnessed a mike tyson gas station is the same thing you give grief to d2 for. encompassing everyone into one group because of a past experience with a one person. tsk, tsk, you should be ashamed, sarge.
well- i am off for the day- taking the kids down to kato to watch training camp and spreading my wealth around the state- i don’t want to discriminate.
it very well may be fake, but i am not convinced with a left wing drivel and somebody’s supposed experiences from the 80’s. if it s fake, i am wrong, but neither of you have any real proof.
define “fake”
I am assuming OT, Sarge, Dora, and KFC all are working with their own very separate definitions of “fake” in this case. Are we to believe it really isn’t a fried chicken joint at all? Just a sign hanging above a bombed out building? Or are we to believe that it really does sell chicken, and just not legally franchised w/ KFC headquarters? Does it make a difference?
Are we questioning the actual existance of a restaurant here? Or are we arguing possible copyright infringement?
OT, the KFC website isn’t proof enough for you? Burying your head in the sand at the first sign of opposition isn’t very intellectually vigorous, my man.
Wonkette doesn’t publish readers’ posts as stories — they got it from TPM muckracker, which thoroughly researched the story. Apparently it was a news piece written by a Marine Cpl that got picked up by Fox.
It’s an unlicensed use of the KFC logo. Basically, the Marine wrote “Hey cool - this is a KFC in Fallujah” and Fox News didn’t bother to check it out first. Dora’s right OT.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/kfc_in_fallujah_too_fingerlick.php
——
Jay,
It is an unlicensed “franchise” — basically, some guy who has a little restaurant in Fallujah put a big “KFC” sign on it.
The difference here is that if it were a “real” KFC, it means that a US comany has spent a lot of time and money setting up a franchise in Iraq — that would be a big deal, because American fast-food joints typically don’t go into places unless they’re really stable.
But it’s fake - so KFC didn’t make that big investnment, which means that it’s not a very big deal at all…
Since it’s fake, it probably means Fox News was overly eager to report some good news coming from Iraq and didn’t bother the check out the story. Pretty sloppy journalism.
ah, no, it’s from Talking Points Memo OT.
which also has the KFC spokesman’s statement to them:
“I understand you wanted some details about the store in Falluja that looks like a KFC. This store is not approved by KFC International and we have working with the US Military to warn the troops of this situation.”
I’d say that statement is proof. So, once again OT, you don’t know what you’re talking about and that includes your comment about where I get my information.
Jay, the original Fox report said a KFC franchise opened in Fallujah. And the whole thing was some rah-rah for how well it’s going. The TPM link also has the Fox video.
See OT, that’s the difference in citing some bs website that spews crap without links or context. TPM provides the whole story including how it started.
…..so if I understand Sarge and Dora (and KFC) correctly, it is actually a very real restaurant. But it is operating as a “knock-off” of the KFC branded locations.
My only problem with the Fox story, DOD posting, Sarge or Dora’s comments, or KFC corporate response…….is that we ought to use the correct terminology for what we are talking about. It is not a “fake” store, but rather an unlicensed one, yes?
Sarge Wrote:
I’m simply saying give me a reason to get behind this “drill now” business.
–
Besides the fact that oil is becoming more scarce, and it takes 10 years to get it into our pipelines, there is this:
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2003/01jan/gashydrates.cfm
Which falls under the category of energy better than “oil”, but the technology to burn methane in auto’s already exists, and this can replace home heating oil, as well as supplement natural gas.
It requires drilling in sea beds, not dry land.
Hey Dora, I think there’s an echo in here 
Jay, if I showed you a designer handbag I bought from a guy on the street for $10, would you call it fake or unlicensed?
I understand that “fake” implies that it’s not a restaurant but some kind of staged thing — that’s cool, but these are generally called, “fake” by Americans living abroad.
It isnt just a fake, It’s a plot by Halliburton to take over the Iraq economy one store at a time….
W is going to be the CEO for KFC-iraq.
Very interesting story Les, thanks. I think if that were the reason for lifting the ban, I’d be more likely to support it — especially since it’s relatively clean methane and not crude oil. But that technology for processing that stuff is more than just a few years off - did you see the part where they have to stabilize it with liquid nitrogen in order to extract the gas?
The current debate is about drilling offshore for crude oil. and by the Bush Administration’s own admission, the offshore drilling they’re talking about is 1%, 20 years from now. There’s some other reason for this that we’re not aware of Les - whether it be the oil industry or the Bush administration, someone’s got an alterior motive.
I would call it a “knock-off” as I said before. My next choice would be unlicensed because that’s what it is. The word choice of “fake” may very well be a common misusage by Americans, including those at KFC headquarters.
I believe using that term creates an illusion of something much more sinister at play than simply some dude who opened a fried chicken joint and slapped a KFC sign over the door without KFC approval. I also suspect that the word choice is intentional by some folks, with the intention of meeting that goal.
I’m not defending Fox news if they made it out to be something that it is not. I am criticizing people who refuted the story for making it out to be something which it was not, as well.
McCain’s media “base” is at it again. But they really need to get a better defense for his negative ads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcU81Y193sU
“whether it be the oil industry or the Bush administration, someone’s got an alterior motive.”
They both do. Companies want to claim “dibs” on additional land to extract oil from. Government wants to benefit from whoring out every acre they can to these companies who are willing to pay them to do so. Then they also charge them to jump through all the hoops required to get approval for such…..creating the “20 years” that it allegedly takes to see product.
If you are wondering “who benefits” the answer is everyone except you. Industry benefits. The government benefits. And the individual candidates apparently get bribe money on top of it, so in a twisted way, they actually benefit the most from a *lack of* support from the public. If the public gets squarely behind the effort, the need for bribes is gone.
“And the individual candidates apparently get bribe money on top of it,”
You mean McCain? He’s the one that’s gotten lots-o-money since he changed his stance on drilling.
Now Dora’s pulling a fox news, pretending the half mil the obomination got from oil doesnt exist. Less money, less beneficial stance from the candidate. (part of a comprehesive package, my @$$)
Drilling for methyl hydrates is dangerous insane lunacy.
It’s highly likely that this “energy” will cost more energy to extract that it will provide. Thus, it’s a non-starter economically. Even with natural gas prices exploding, it won’t ever make sense to drill for.
Second, hydrates are very hazardous to try to extract—drilling destabilizes the fragile gas/water structure, causing huge gas explosions and collapses of the ocean floor.
Finally, and most alarmingly, methane is a greenhouse gas on the order of 10 times worse than CO2, and every attempt to extract the “energy” of hydrates has released far more methane into the atmosphere than was ever recovered. Since we can’t even control CO2 emissions, the last thing we need is to start risking release of the worse greenhouse gas on earth into the atmosphere–that would cook us for good.
This is just another crazed Pandora’s Box which should NEVER be opened by anyone, the risk is far too great—this sleeping dog should be left to lie, so he doesn’t wake up and bite us all in the *ss.
Dems should respond to this latest Repub lunacy by saying they will hold extensive hearings on the cost/benefit of offshore drilling this Fall. Then this “discussion” could proceed on the basis of actual facts about what can likely be recovered, why BigOil hasn’t drilled on the millions of leases it already has, and what the environmental risks are.
That will kill the Repubs, who can’t stand making decisions based on actual facts, they prefer “decisions” and “votes” based on ignorance and hysteria.
The fact that something this basic—holding hearings to thrash out the reality of offshore drilling—isn’t even considered shows the complete retardation of this country at this point in its decline.
Dora: “You mean McCain?”
No….otherwise I would have said McCain. Read the posts. I mean politicians in general, from both parties, who have taken bribes and received benefits. There are too many of them to list individually, and I’m not convinced that McCain and/or Obama have much difference in that regard, so I didn’t bother distinguishing between them.
I see you didn’t miss an opportunity to try and jump back into partisan bashing, rather than admit that the Dem’s are just as much a part of this house-of-cards than anyone else. Typical.
Les, you’ll notice I said since McCain changed his stance on drilling. He has gotten tons of money from oil execs at the time he changed his stance on drilling.
Yeah, Obama has gotten money from individuals who work in the oil and gas industry. And individuals who work in the banking industry. And individuals who work in the telecom industry. And individuals who work in the health care industry….
And as has been pointed out, donationns from “corporations’ for either candidate are illegal.. So mccains are “individual” contributions also.
You are following your definition of the Fox model rather well Dora.
oh and Les, he was talking about a specific bill that indeed does include some drilling as part of a comprehensive package. He hasn’t jumped on the drill everywhere! drill everything! bandwagon.
It’s not partisan bashing Jay, when you point out the truth about the timing of McCain receiving big money from oil execs.
oil execs vs individuals who work in the industry that aren’t oil execs. Hmmm, yeah, same thing Les.
It is partisan bashing, Dora, when you constantly point out fault with one or the other, while remaining silnet when the opposite is at fault. dare2 does it too, so don’t feel bad. You two make a cute and equally irritating pair.
Dora: “individuals who work in the industry that aren’t oil execs.”
Dora, are you actually able to identify what position a donor holds at work? I’m curious if you are able to accurately distinguish Obama’s donors as “non execs.” That seems a little fishy to me.
Oil exec who are not individuals.. Darth Vader perhaps???
You of all people should realize that those expecting “help” grease both palms in a race…
Obama has made it quite clear that he’s highly skeptical of the value of off shore drilling but has (unfortunately) indicated that he could accept it as part of a comprehensive package that includes most of the energy policies he sees as crucial.
He’s willing to allow some drilling if that’s what the “compromise” includes. I don’t like it, but it is arguably a reasonable politcial position, given the retardation of the Repubs.
If BushAmericans no longer want to protect our beautiful coastlines and fisheries and tourism so that fat-*ssed morons can drive SUVs and monster pickups around and leave no oil for the future, well, Obama can’t stop them.
Plus, most of the areas that will be crapped up by drilling are Red State coastlines, so at least the Red Staters’ section of the world will get even more sh*tted up.
A democracy is only as good as its citizens, and ours are increasingly crappy, greedy, and self centered. We will be appropriately dam8ed by posterity, and hopefully by our own children.
I especially hope that conservative parents make their deranged views known to their children, so that when the whole ball of sh*t explodes in the future, the kids can spit in their crappy parents faces.
Do you conservatives seriously believe that the fossil fuel industry has contributed “equally” to Dems and Repubs?
Sarge;
Here’s some current info:
http://www.oilandgasinvestor.com/Headlines/WebJuly/item4827.php
Parth:
Hope your not too disapointed when you have to use this gas to heat your house some winter, rather than those highly efficient northern lattitude solar panels.
Didnt say equally.. said greased both palms “if they are expecting “help”".
parthian; “Do you conservatives seriously believe that the fossil fuel industry has contributed “equally” to Dems and Repubs?”
Over the years? No. In this campaign cycle? Yes. Is the fossil fuel industry alone in supporting both sides of recent elections? Absolutely not.
Do you liberals (parth and Dora in particular) seriously believe otherwise?
“I especially hope that conservative parents make their deranged views known to their children, so that when the whole ball of sh*t explodes in the future, the kids can spit in their crappy parents faces.”
I think the person posting as ‘parthian’ is actually Mike Hatch. Angry little man. Irrational. Self-righteous. Sounds plausible.
DSTI, however, is fact free. This topic (like all of them) is partisan. If you want to go down that road you might as well say they are all at fault for everything. There are differences Jay. Even though you don’t want to acknowledge them. You’re the typical–they all do it, throw all them bums out. Yeah there are individuals in both parties who are worse.
“Oil exec who are not individuals” I didn’t say that Les.
And yes Jay, you can track their position. Guess you’ve never contributed to a candidate because they ask that. Not to mention that the people who track donations also can identify the names of the big oil execs.
There is nothing inherently wrong with anybody in any industry contributing to campaigns. Whether they are representing big oil, or telecoms or even labor unions. Whether they are execs or employees. The problem really boils down to what they get, or expect to get, for their money. Individuals contribute to campaigns because they also expect a candidate to represent them. It’s the amounts, and the timing (in the case of large contributions) and whether those large contributors get “favors” as in the case with those elected officials (from both parties) who have gotten in legal trouble.
“And yes Jay, you can track their position. Guess you’ve never contributed to a candidate because they ask that.”
I told them I was a professional skateborder……so much for the accuracy of your sources.
“Not to mention that the people who track donations also can identify the names of the big oil execs.”
That’s ridiculous. Not only are names common enough that more than one person could have the same name, the only one’s staffers would know about are the very high profile ones. There are many exec’s with many small (often non-public) companies that they’ve never heard of. Conversely, there are likley many individulas who share the common name of multiple “big oil” exec’s.
I think your responses serve as an answer to my question alright…..and that answer is “no.”
Dora: “You’re the typical–they all do it, throw all them bums out.”
Incorrect. I am a vocal supporter of many of the individuals who do good work in DC. These individuals represent me, the state, and both political parties. I reject the notion that one side is always right, or somehow morally superuior to the other side. I also reject the notion that I should have to pick one side or the other. I will not allow either party to try and ‘blackmail’ me for my votes, and I won’t allow closed-minded individuals liek you try and guilt me into it either.
So yes- I think we should throw all the bums out. I do not think that either party, or all of the elected officials are bums. I get ill when people like yourself continually go to bat for one party, despite their obvious faults. I guess there is a slim chance that their faults match your own precisely, but I’m doubtful of that.
Okay Jay, now that response is really really reaching.
So you think most people lie like you did? That’s your opinion.
And you think because the names of big oil execs are common they don’t know who they are? hahahaha. That’s just silly.
I wasn’t talking about some small non-public companies. Leave it to you to focus on some meaningless point just like with the KFC story ‘what’s the meaning of “fake”.
“So you think most people lie like you did? That’s your opinion.”
That’s not my opinion. My opinion is that it is more possible than you allow, especially if someone has an agenda. That it is possible, is a fact, not an opinion.
“hahahaha. That’s just silly.”
Really? Let me illustrate. Here is a short series of true or false statements:
Adrain Peterson is a football player with the MN Vikings.
Adrian Peterson is a white guy.
Adrain Peterson play with the Chicago bears.
Adrian Peterson is 12 years old.
Reality is that all these are true and all are false. Adrian Peterson is the name of my buddy’s 12-year-old son. It is also the name of a guy who plays for the Vikings. It is also the name of a guy who plays teh exact same position (runningback) for the Chicago Bears. Ironic? Not really. Limited to only that name? Definately not.
“I wasn’t talking about some small non-public companies”
Perhaps you should be. The exec’s for these kind of companies have a lot more to gain, financially, than a number of exec’s at Exxon. What about that point is “meaningless” exactly?
ROFLMAO
FYI…
Obamanatons dontations were from “oil executives”
Dang..
For some reason the BQ wont let me post the direct link to the AP ADWatch service fact check.
I’m sure it’s a plot…:-)
from factcheck Les: Based on CRP’s figures, McCain’s oil and gas donations account for just 0.9 cents out of every $100 he’s raised. Obama’s oil and gas total comes to 0.1 cents per $100. That’s a significant difference between the two candidates, and it’s clear that the industry is favoring McCain with its donations. Whether that puts him “in the pocket” of the industry is a judgment we’ll leave to our readers.
AdWatch: Obama’s ad tells only part of the story
By The Associated Press – 21 hours ago
TITLE: “Pocket”
LENGTH: 30 seconds.
AIRING: Running in rotation in the 18 states where Obama is already running ads
SCRIPT: Announcer: “Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now big oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with $2 million in contributions because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another. Barack Obama — a windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a $1,000 rebate, a president who’ll stand up for you.”
Obama: “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”
KEY IMAGES: Video of drivers pumping gas are intercut with a gas station price list that begins at $4.13 for regular unleaded. When the announcer talks about “one president in the pocket of big oil,” an image of President Bush and McCain together appears on the screen. The foreboding background music turns light as images of Obama campaigning with voters appear while the announcer talks about the Democrat’s energy plan.
ANALYSIS: The ad suggests that at a time of spiking gas prices, McCain has a special tax deal for big oil companies. That isn’t the whole story.
McCain’s proposal to cut corporate taxes isn’t just a break for oil companies, but would affect all U.S. businesses. The Arizona Republican senator wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent as an incentive to keep jobs in the United States.
It is true that McCain has gotten more contributions from oil and gas industry executives — about three times as much as Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But it’s not necessarily true that the donations were made because McCain has proposed the corporate tax breaks, as the ad claims.
The Public Campaign Action Fund found donations to McCain and the Republican Party spiked after McCain proposed that the U.S. lift its ban on offshore drilling. It would be harder for Obama to criticize McCain for that position, since the majority of respondents in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll said they would be more likely to support a candidate who would ease those restrictions.
Obama initially opposed the idea, but now says he could support limited offshore drilling as part of a compromise energy package. He maintains offshore drilling is not the ideal solution for high gas prices.
In response to the ad, the McCain campaign points out that Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production. McCain voted against it. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democrat voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy.
The McCain campaign also pointed out that the ad doesn’t mention Obama has accepted campaign donations of some $400,000 from oil company executives.
Analysis by Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler
..but it will let me post the entire article.. go figure.
LOL,, Dora, playing with stats again? What about all the bragging from Obama how’s he’s out fund raising McCain??
Please define CRP. That’s an ancronmyn for Conservation Reserve Program, and I dont think McCain or Obama have a large number of acres in that.
Ah… Center for Responsive Politics.
Funny, all the obamination’s lies found in that factcheck didnt make it into you post, eh Dora.
Les, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call that ad “lies” — it’s definitely got spin, but ALL political ads have that.
Now having said that, Dora, I think Jay’s beliefs match those in the middle who decide elections. If you’re going to follow one party blindly and assume they’re 100% right all the time, you’re just as flaky as D2. I’ve been leaning leftward these past few years, but I’m still a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment and individual gun rights. My best friend is a registered Republican, but he’s pro choice and thinks marijuana should be legal. Most people have mixed political beliefs like this.
Ok Sarge;; Spin.. She still forgot to mention these “spins”
Although I dont know how to spin 1.3 million into 2 million, it doesnt even round up correctly..
And if McCain’s in the pocketss of “Big Oil” then he’s in the pocet of ‘All U.S. Businesses”
“All political adds have that”
True.. I’ve been noticing how the “change” sure seems alot like the status quo.
“If you’re going to follow one party blindly and assume they’re 100% right all the time,”
Well gee SgtP, I don’t assume that. You must have missed where I said: “It’s the amounts, and the timing (in the case of large contributions) and whether those large contributors get “favors” as in the case with those elected officials (from both parties) who have gotten in legal trouble.”
Dora didn’t ‘forget’ Les. She is part of the spin machine, and is very skilled at it, when she isn’t too busy rolling on the floor in response to someone illustrating how foolish her attitudes are.
The KFC thing was a perfect example. She/they intentionally define it as something which can be easily misinterpreted, instead of simply refuting it accurately, then attempt to minimize anyone who seeks to point out that difference, citing it as a “meaningless” difference.
If you are interested in making your argument- do it honestly and accurately. You should have the luxury of doing that if your case has merit. If you are less interested in the truth and more interested in smearing your opponent, you embrace the tactics Dora uses.
From the AP:
Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production. McCain voted against it.
-
the obominaton is obviously in the oil companies pockets.
Dora: “Well gee SgtP, I don’t assume that.”
So Dora, are you stating that you do *not* blindly follow one political party? Because that would be hillarious to see you actually post that and expect any of the readers to believe it.
yep, they definitely inflated the number. They cobbled it together from two different reports. They didn’t need to do that since McCain is getting three times the amount of donations. Much better to stick with what’s easily verifiable.
Les: “Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production. McCain voted against it.”
I don’t understand, Les…….how could McCain vote against something that would benefit some of the people who donate money to his campaign? Why would Obama vote in favor of something he claims he is against? The only conclusions I am left to draw from your post is that McCain has some measure of integrity and Obama is largely a phony.
Actually Les that’s Obama being consistent in accepting some things he doesn’t like if it includes other things it does. From the article you posted: he “voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy”.
“Because that would be hillarious to see you actually post that and expect any of the readers to believe it.”
This might come as a big shock to you Jay but I really don’t care whether a bunch of anonymous bloggers who don’t actually know me believe it or not. If you want to make judgements based on what I post and believe that tells the whole story of who I am, be my guest.
Ahhhh…..so according to Dora, its okay for a candidate to support a measure that contradicts him in one place, but also contains things which he supports. Sounds like the whole “so-and-so voted for measure X” strategy might be out-the-window.
Out of curiosity, Dora, what would you call it if McCain supported a measure containing a mix of things he did and didn’t like? Would you refer to that as being “consistent” as well?
“If you are less interested in the truth and more interested in smearing your opponent,”
“The only conclusions I am left to draw from your post is that McCain has some measure of integrity and Obama is largely a phony.”
Mr. Consistency strikes again!
“If you want to make judgements based on what I post and believe that tells the whole story of who I am, be my guest.”
Hey, what’s good for the goose…..
“Mr. Consistency strikes again!”
You are apparently a good teacher, Dora.
“its okay for a candidate to support a measure that contradicts him in one place, but also contains things which he supports.”
I realize we haven’t seen much of this in politics but it’s called compromise. “My way or the highway” politics doesn’t work as evidenced by the last 8 years.
A president that would actually be willing to compromise to get things done. What a concept!
actually, taken in proper context of where you pulled your cut-n-paste from, Dora, those comments are very consistent. I am not attempting to smear Obama by using misleading terminology……my entire premise is that he is a phony. I think I’ve been pretty clear about that.
Actually Les that’s Obama being consistent in accepting some things he doesn’t like if it includes other things it does. From the article you posted: he “voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy”.
—
Yup, see what happens when you cherry pick sentences Dora..then try to lend credence becasue it’s from “fact check”
What I posted was 100% accurate. It was from ADcheck via AP. The fact it didn’t paint the entire picture was my whole point, just like your cherrypicking earlier concerning McCain..
And your still at it. Note the “McCain voted against it”. You totally ignored it, or didnt read the entire article well while stating he’s in the pocket of big oil.
Dora: “I realize we haven’t seen much of this in politics but it’s called compromise. “My way or the highway” politics doesn’t work as evidenced by the last 8 years.”
Its been a lot longer than 8 years since we’ve seen real compromise. True compromise has to do with subtraction, not addition. “I’ll vote for your wasteful idea if you agree to support my wasteful idea” is not suitable compromise. Not to me anyway.
No one wants to adjust their own ideas in the spirit of copmpromise. They want to leave them completely intact and in return, agree to support other half-baked ideas from the other side. That is called irresponsibility, not compromise.
um Les, what I posted from factcheck didn’t state he’s in the pocket of big oil. It stated this: “Whether that puts him “in the pocket” of the industry is a judgment we’ll leave to our readers.” It is a fact he’s gotten more money from the industry. Even the article you posted acknowledged that.
God I wish the election were held tomorrow so we could stop having this stupid “my dad’s less of a jerk than your dad” debate.
“It is a fact he’s gotten more money from the industry.”
That’s incorrect. It is not a proovable fact. It is the belief of the sources from which you have pulled your info. We’ve already been over this. Why is it so difficult for you to accurately state your position?
“God I wish the election were held tomorrow so we could stop having this stupid “my dad’s less of a jerk than your dad” debate.”
Since when does the passing of election day stop that kind of dialogue, Sarge?
McCain is indeed making gains…
Obama 289
McCain 236
Ties 13
…athough the McCain’s lead in Florida looks like it could be an outlier
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/florida.html
Still too close to call in my book. Anyone who tells you that Obamania is runnin wild is wrong.
“It is not a proovable fact”
Oh that’s right, you think everybody lies about who they work for. ::rolls eyes::
I stand corrected.. You didnt use the term “in the pocket of”.
You have, however, made a very large point of the amount of money McCain has received from “oil executives” and tried to downplay the obaminations dontaion from oil as not being from ‘oil executives’ despite fact check stating they were. While doing this, you ignored McCain’s anti big oil vote.
So I apoligize for saying you used a apecific term you didnt. Which is a moot point, given your attempt to link McCain to “big oil” anyway.
“Oh that’s right, you think everybody lies about who they work for. ::rolls eyes::”
Oh that’s right…..you assume everyone who would wish to disguise the origins of their contribution is completely up front and open with where their financial interest may be, and that some staffers in the “donations” dept have a firm grasp of the executive teams for all energy companies, along with some magical ability to distinguish between them and someone else of the same common name.
Rolls eyes, indeed.
Sarge;
Ya, I noted they had Fla red on RCP, but only had him ahead by .5%.. Kinda surprised me.
At the same time, they had OH blue with Obama leading about 2%.
I think they put a little of their own “spin” on the numbers when they paint some states a given color..
Did you ever read the box you check when you make a donation Jay? It says you are attesting to the accuracy of your statements. I think there’s some kind of federal law requiring them to do that. Hmmmm, why would they not want people to diguise the origins of their financial contributions??? Gee, I’m not totally conversant in the campaign finance laws but seems to me there just might be some kind of penalty for trying to disguise the origins of your contribution.
RCP? Yeah they do. Electoral-vote.com aggregates all the poll data in one convenient location…They also don’t go on and on about how balanced they are. I’ve always felt that the more an organizations raves about being fair and balanced, the more likely they’re not.
Les, I find most of your arguments intelligent and well thought out even when I don’t agree with them. That’s why I don’t understand why you always refer to Obama as “Obamination”. That seems a bit beneath you.
McCain is linked to “big oil” Les. I don’t see the donations flooding into Obama’s campaign after his supposed flip flop to supporting more drilling. Yet, that’s what happened with McCain. As Factcheck noted: draw your own conclusions.
I’m sure you are right. Point is……?
There is a penalty for speeding too, but people do it anyway. personally, i pay as much attention to the terms of checked box as I do to “accept terms of agreement” on new software. Which is to say, of course, I don’t read it at all. I’ll assume you are right though, and you still have no case. Unless you wish to run with the underlying belief that humans are always 100% honest, which would be even funnier than your previous claims.
Dora: “I don’t see the donations flooding into Obama’s campaign after his supposed flip flop to supporting more drilling.”
Congratulations, Dora! This is an accurate statement to substantiate your argument. Nicely done. No mention of “truths” that don’t really exist, no holding up of something as “fact” when it is not, or any other over-the-top fluff.
Keep it up.
Dora Dora Dora….
Yet you ignore his vote against them…
McCain supports drilling now not because of donatons, but because, like most rational folks, the failure to develop our own resources while seeking “independence” makes little sense. It makes even less sense when oil is going through the roof, cost wise.
I can see that big oil is helping out Mccain on this issue today, as oil prices continue to fall, weaking the public outcry for domestic oil sources.
You may disagree, but at least be honest about it.
Obama’s “supposed flip flop”…. give me a break.
What about his blantant attempt to buy votes at a 1000 bucks a shot?? How does depleting our national defense stockpiles help, expecially when you propose to “replenish” it with junk, rather than light sweet crude.
In case you havent noticed, we dont have any hybrid versions of the F-22 or M-1 Abrams sitting around. The reserve doesn’t exist to fuel Parth’s SUV.
Les: “How does depleting our national defense stockpiles help”
Actually, Les this is one point upon which I agree with Obama- albeit for very different reasons. Given our abundant stockpiles of crude oil (both industry and gov), for the government to release strategic reserves at this point wouldn’t constitute much more than the government taking a short position ahead of the looming price crash, so they can buy it back cheaper a year from now. That actually makes a lot of sense to do right now.
I suspect Obama’s motives are much different. I would agree with Les that he attempted to buy votes at $1000 per head, but McCain attempted to do the same with the Fed gas tax this spring.
Les, I find most of your arguments intelligent and well thought out even when I don’t agree with them. That’s why I don’t understand why you always refer to Obama as “Obamination”. That seems a bit beneath you.
–
First reason is I really despise s0cia!sts.
Second reason is I beleive that’s the “progressive” way. Paint the opponet with a deragatory nickname.
That’s about it.
I always though the Obamination reference that Les makes was a play off of the media’s “Obama Nation” slogan that it seems to splash around in reference to his feverish (borderline lunatic) supporters. Not unlike Raider Nation or Red Sox Nation, in that regard.
From Open Secrets, the Center for Responsive Politics website:
“The oil and gas industry, which often sides with Repubs[], went from giving 18 percent of its contributions to Democrats overall in 2006 to 26 percent so far in 2008″. That means 74% of its contributions are going to Repubs right now.
I think we can safely say there is no chance this will ever decline to under 50%, even with Congress under Dem control, whatever “pox on both their houses” Jay may imagine.
Further, Open Secrets has a post up today demonstrating that Team McCain has received over $1.3 million from oil and gas interests through 6/30/08, while Obama has received less than $400,000 from oil and gas industry sources. That’s better than 3 to 1 for McCain.
And this does not include the hundreds of thousands that oil n’ gassers have given the RNC “Victory Fund” (barf) to date. So I think we know whom BigOil would like to have squatting in the WH for another 4 years: another Repub, duh. But they really support both parties, jay.
Anyway, don’t let the facts cloud your prejudices—both parties are equally beholden to oil and gas interests for campaign contributions, riiighhttt…..
As long as Bigoil has this much power in the “process” there will be no possibility of developing alternate fuels or energy sources, and BigOil will simply enjoy windfall profit after windfall profit.
Jay;
From a speculative, or financial standpoint, what you propose makes sense. From a national defense standpoint, you dont know if you have the time to replenish at a latter date.
If you assume nothing will occur to force us into a defesive posture while being cut off from non domestic oil sources, Great. But if your wrong, you find yourself in the position Japan was in 1940, your toast.
This is one are where I’m more inclined to be chicken little than an optomist. Espescially since were talking about “making things easier” rather than a true emergency(2 buck gas).
Of course, I’m also assuming even Obama wouldnt go nuclear for oil.
Anyway, don’t let the facts cloud your prejudices—both parties are equally beholden to oil and gas interests for campaign contributions, riiighhttt…..
–
Equally.. maybe not. But I dont think they’re throwing away 26% of their cash just for grins…
BTW, using your logic for oil, does that make the Dems George Soros’ personal party??
Well Jay, like it or not, when it comes to campaign contributions those kind of appearances are damaging. And you d@mn well better believe that McCain’s operatives would be screaming it from the rooftops if it was the other way around. What was that about the goose…
“Yet you ignore his vote against them…”
Yeah, and at one time he opposed drilling. So? Not about votes it was about donations.
Les, Les, Les, Obama isn’t a s0cia!ist. You seem to be the one consistently being derogatory. Well, you and DTSI and OT. Nice company.
They’re giving that 26% basically to those Dems sitting on the few relevant committees on energy policy.
I didn’t say BigOil was stupid.
talk about delusional.
“House Republicans on Tuesday said their protest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision not to allow a vote on expanded offshore oil drilling has helped lower gas prices.
Heading into a third day of speeches in the near-empty chamber, Republicans acknowledged that the average price of gas and oil has declined in recent weeks. But they claimed credit for part of that reduction.”
They don’t need to have a vote to lower gas prices all they need is Republican’s speaking to an empty chamber. Nancy Pelosi is a genius!
parthian: “From Open Secrets, the Center for Responsive Politics website:
“The oil and gas industry, which often sides with Repubs[], went from giving 18 percent of its contributions to Democrats overall in 2006 to 26 percent so far in 2008″. That means 74% of its contributions are going to Repubs right now. ”
….and yet another way to say that would be that oil industry donations to Democrats is up about 45% in the last two years. Maybe it just appears like they are “for sale” more so than in previous years?
Aren’t stats fun to twist? Open Secrets isn’t the only outfit capable of doing so.
LOL, Dora, sometimes I think you just dont know how to read.
You want to count the number of McBushes, McSames, Bushco, RWers, etc VS the number of obominations???
That vote wasnt about drilling, by the way, but dont let the facts get in your way there either.
He isn’t eh. What do you call someone who demands an industry be singled out for additional taxes so they can be redistributed as “rebates”. If he isnt full blown, he’s got the tendency. And yes, I beleive, if he could, he’d have the govenment in control of more than just energy and health care production and distrubution. (so much for parth’s coming “you dont know what a XX is”).
BTW:
Open source: 2008 donations by party.
Lobbyists Dem 55% Repub 45%
TV/Movies/Music Dems 75% Repub 25%
Telcom Services Dems 62% Repub 38%.
SOOOO, Obammers in the pockets of lobbyings, entertainment and Telecom services. Right??
“SOOOO, Obammers in the pockets of lobbyings, entertainment and Telecom services. Right??”
I’d say that’s fair, Les…….at least to no greater or lesser extent than the assertion that McCain is in the pocket of any other sector for the very same reason. At least, by parthian/Dora logic. Back to that goose/gander thing that Dora seemed to agree with.
Jeesh.. Pawlenty’s abonding ship…
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S534940.shtml?cat=210
Barr’s looking better by the minute…
How many of McCain’s donors have jobs? That would be important to know, because I firmly expect him to stand in favor of that group and look out for their interests.
“You want to count the number of McBushes, McSames, Bushco, RWers, etc VS the number of obominations???”
You go right ahead Les, and tell us what you find. Nice you lump yourself in with the people you say you disdain for doing the same thing. But hey, if it floats your boat.
That s0c!alist meme has been lobbed against Democrats for a long time. oooooo, look out for the scarey Democrat, they’re s0c!alists or communists or Marxists (that one seems to be DTSI’s new scarey word)
hahaha. Yeah, McCain is looking out for middle America, except his tax plan doesn’t really reflect that at all. http://tinyurl.com/6yqqm3
“The Republican Party sometimes can be too cynical, negative and needs to be more hopeful and optimistic and energetic,” Pawlenty said in an interview with The Associated Press.
What???? They better get themselves a different presidential candidate then because he inspires none of those things.
“Yeah, McCain is looking out for middle America, except his tax plan doesn’t really reflect that at all.”
Not at all, huh? How does Obama’s tax plan benefit middle America? Oh yes, by raising income taxes and hitting them with capital gains on their modest earnings there now too.
He’s quite the little problem solver, isn’t he?
“How does Obama’s tax plan benefit middle America?”
Guess you didn’t click on the link.
Les, “drilling now” means an increase in American supply of 1% in 20 years. Obama correctly points out this is approximately the same amount that could be saved by properly inflating tires.
20 years from now, we could have technololgy that makes it even cheaper to get oil from the NoDak fields…plus we’ll certainly have more efficient vehicles and probably more running on alternative fuels by that time. It’s just not warranted.
What’s the real reason for this — that’s what I’d like to know.
“The Republican Party sometimes can be too cynical, negative and needs to be more hopeful and optimistic and energetic,” Pawlenty said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Its the duty of the Republican party to be cynical and negative. Much of America is cynical and negative, so its a good fit. Its the role of the Democratic party to be optimistic, as well as inventive. It’d be nice if both parties showed something resembling wisdom or responsibility but those qualities don’t seem to make either of their lists of goals.
I’m okay with them being cynical and negative, Tim. Sorry. There are already too many dreamers in DC. Some realists would be nice.
“Guess you didn’t click on the link.”
Why would you guess that?
I think there’s a difference between a realist (i.e. Bush 41, Nixon) and cynical and negative — two very different things Jay.
Pawlenty’s a pretty smart guy - the old GOP messages aren’t flying with Americans anymore because Bush messed everything up. He’s the son of a truck driver, so his GOP is one for the people - that’s inconsistent with where it’s been in the past.
Oh I don’t know, maybe since your question is answered by what’s covered in it.
“What’s the real reason for this — that’s what I’d like to know.”
Why not approve it under the restriction that if you already hold acres under lease, you need to be showing due dillignece in drilling there first? This is an issue about major political party arm-wrestling in front of a general public that doesn’t recognize the difference.
Is there any reason to allow off-shore drilling to a company that only desires to acquire and hold acres, showing no effort to utilize them at this time? The answer is clearly NO. Is there any reason to prevent a company that has no such holdings from drilling off-shore? Or to prevent a company that is already showing a committment to utilizing lands already under lease? The answer there is also clearly NO.
parthian would have you believe this is some sort of an elaborate “pox on both your houses” trick by me. It isn’t. They are both half-right wrong and half-wrong and its just that simple.
“I think there’s a difference between a realist (i.e. Bush 41, Nixon) and cynical and negative — two very different things Jay”
You beat me to it SgtP. So I’ll just say, I agree.
I disagree with you both. I don’t believe they are as dis-similar as you’d like to believe.
“Oh I don’t know, maybe since your question is answered by what’s covered in it.”
I don’t have a question, you did. And you apparently have a very misleading answer to it.
FWIW, Dora…..although your link didn’t take me to a Comedy Central site this time, I did dismiss your “credible source” rather quickly once I saw that it claimed Obama’s average tax increase for someone making 227,000-603,000/year would be $12. That’s bullsh1t and I think we all know that.
Interesting perspective Jay. I see McCain’s senior economic adviser quoted in the article didn’t take issue with it. Maybe that’s because it shoots down your viewpoint about their economic plans as bullsh1t.
“I disagree with you both. I don’t believe they are as dis-similar as you’d like to believe. ”
Of course you don’t. If Jay thinks they’re similar, then by gosh by golly everybody else is wrong!
“I don’t have a question, you did”.
Oh yeah? Who said this? “How does Obama’s tax plan benefit middle America?”
me. then note I also had the answer to that question. You were the one that asked how McCain’s tax plan would benefit middle America.
“If Jay thinks they’re similar”
where did I say they were similar? Sarge said they were very different things. You felt the need to agree. I said they werer not as dissimilar as you’d like to believe.
Anything less than very different is similar, I guess huh? Yet, I am the one who is closed minded and sees no middle ground? Your desparate misrepresentations are truely entertaining. I think you honestly believe yourself.
“Tell ‘em to come back and get to work,” McCain said, yelling into the microphone. “When I’m president of the United States, I’m not going to let them go on vacation.”
This from someone who missed 4 energy votes just in the last month and who missed the most total votes (63% of them).
“You were the one that asked how McCain’s tax plan would benefit middle America”
You’re dreaming Jay.
cynical: Everyone is corrupt, so I may as well be corrupt too.
realist: Everyone is corrupt, so I’m going to be cautious, skeptical, and pragmatic about who I trust.
well, i am back from kato. i do not have the time or inclination to read all of the posts since i left but i will address the inanities of sarge and dora.
news sources- AP, Fox, CNN, Reuters, TPMuckraker….wtf? get a source- not your left wing bs trough. until you show an actual source- you are saying nothing. whoever said tpmuckraker is an established and resourced site with no reader posts- why is this on the main page then?
Hypnotic Politics
by M. B. Hill
McCain Gets Off Easy On Hardball
by ESK
TPM on a roll. (Now with paragraph breaks!)
by Alexander Humboldt
Suskind’s Latest: Al Qaeda, Saddam and a Can of Pork and Beans
by Bailey Wojohoitz
McCain/Bush Offer Only Thin Arguments For Offshore Drilling
by R T Eby
Yet Another Bizarre Case- This One Might Not Vanish
by diachronic
Why would Ron Suskind make up faked letter?
by Mary Kitt-Neel
The Unimpeachable Sincerity of George W. Bush
by diachronic
McCain: “Back to work” He’s joking right?
by Larry Tamblyn
Barack to McCain: Stay Classy Johnny
by Graduate Student
yep, in your deluded bds leftie world, this is a nonpartisan well researched site- and the reason i once again say you two are full of sheet.
of course OT, don’t read the article that is sourced, with links but just try to discredit the site. And who are you to criticize when you post sh1t from powerline among others. Sheesh.
“whoever said tpmuckraker is an established and resourced site with no reader posts.”
no one. And it was Talking Points Memo. Since you obviously can’t refute what was said you’re only alternative is to try to bash the site.
Better do your typical cut and paste OT because on your own you’re even more pathetic than those.
Now this is funny!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad
This one will probably go viral.
I’m sorry OT - did you bother to click on the KFC website link I provided? That’s from the horse’s mouth. Proof don’t get any better than that. They do not have any stores in Iraq period.
Quit while you’re ahead, my friend.
I am glad you corrected with the tpm, it is so much more factual and fair than the other bs site. if you hadn’t stated it was talking points, i would surely have guessed it to be toilet paper memos instead.
i post something from powerline that was taken out of a ap story and i am misrepresenting what exactly?
AS I SAID BEFORE, i don’t care whether the story is factual or not, but excuse me if your “life experiences” and dora’s left wing tripe trough reader posts are the evidence. Also, thanks for skipping over my accusation that you do the same thing d2 does and you jump him but you are excused to do it.
Dora says:
“Les, Les, Les, Obama isn’t a s0cia!ist.”
Social*sts would never get elected running in a party of their own, so they take cover and thrive in the democrat party as liberal extremists. Obama is a perfect example of this.
tsk, tsk, tsk OT. You sound almost hysterical.
Speaking of tripe….
i don’t see what is hysterical about wanting facts, not doralies and “experiences”. what is hysterical is that you watch a paris hilton video and think it is funny. she obviously had absolutely no input into it- too stupid for that. i have seen a portion of another paris hilton video, although entirely different but no more interesting.
ya wanna see something really funny? watch this guy interview william jefferson, another member of the most ethical congress in history. good stuff!
oooo, sour grapes from OT. Yeah, she really sounded stupid. Her mom and grandfather were po’d by that McCain ad.
Did you catch the cryptkeeper and the golden girls? and Yoda? And how she kept referring to him as the wrinkly white haired guy?
Payback.
“watch this guy interview william jefferson, another member of the most ethical congress in history.”
You mean liberal democrat William “cash in the freezer” Jefferson? Is he still around passing bad legislation? At least the Republicans get rid of their scumbags.
A Taxpayer Voting For Obama Is Like A Chicken Voting For Colonel Sanders!
OT, you asked for proof, I gave it, now you’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
THERE IS NO KFC IN IRAQ.
Fox News was sloppy and wrong, as was the DoD. Happens to liberals and conservatives alike OT.
“THERE IS NO KFC IN IRAQ.”
Skips House of BBQ Pork is big though.
Windfall Tax on Retirement imcome. . . .
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you’re so darn stupid that we’re going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That’s what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below……………
Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren’t going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas , it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!
This woman is frightening.
She quotes…’ We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn’t Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.’ ( I am not rich, are you)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
‘We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as ‘Americans’.’
Dora: “You’re dreaming Jay.”
in response to my comment:
“You were the one that asked how McCain’s tax plan would benefit middle America”
Actually, you’re right Dora. You never did. My mistake. You came right out in your 3:03 post and claimed flat out that he wouldn’t:
“hahaha. Yeah, McCain is looking out for middle America, except his tax plan doesn’t really reflect that at all.”
Then followed it up with a link to some story concluding that he actually would. As would Obama. I find the numbers difficult to swallow for both candidates, but they are what they are. You found them published somewhere, so the degree to which they are accurate reflections of reality doesn’t matter much. At any rate, your data doesn’t seem to match your contention on McCain.
Its also worth noting that the story you referenced was talking about 2009 specifically, not the following 3 or 7 years.
actually, dare2, your post was an email that was widely circulated about a year ago and its false. Personally, I have concerns about the government eventually trying some stunt similar to that, as there is just way too much money concentrated in non-taxable accounts for them to leave their grubby hands off of it for ever.
Fortunately, it doesn’t appear to be happening anytime soon and probably won’t have anything to do with Pelosi as she will be long gone in the next couple of election cycles.
I would suggest that anyone with a tax sheltered account be mindful of that issue though.
I curious how DFL Dora would defend liberal democrat Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to allow a vote in Congress on ending the liberal ban on domestic oil drilling, and her proposed tax on retirement income which would go to illegal aliens.
Isn’t it clear that Pelosi is a social*st who wants Americans (and illegals) to live exactly how she thinks they should?
Thanks Jay for the correction.
There should be no doubt though that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama would love to get control of our retirement accounts to pay for their plan of redistribution of wealth going to illegal aliens, third world refugees, and motivationally challenged welfare recipients.
“her proposed tax on retirement income”
yep DTSI, that’s a snopes.com debunked email. But leave it to you to regurgitate it.
Another Obama lie: He said that tire inflation would save energy equal to “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.” The oil is estimated to be one trillion, 28 billion barrels. Savings that could be gained by proper tire inflation and tunups is less than 420 million barrels per year (if everyone had underflated tires and needed a tuneup).
QED
Dora,
As I said, Pelosi and liberal friends are social*sts and would love to come after our hard earned money any way they can to achieve their Marxist like goals.
“Another Obama lie: He said that tire inflation would save energy equal to “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.””
This is a problem that B. Hussein Obama can’t inflate his way out of.
As I posted earlier:
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S.”
Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tires.
Using the website FuelEconomy.gov the estimated maximum fuel economy savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned–4%, replacing air filters–up to 10%, properly inflating tires–up to 3% and using the correct motor oil–1-2% for a total of 18-19%.
Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day.
However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune-ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%. So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day.
According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the lower-48 outer continental shelf will increase by about 200,000 barrels per day.
By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800,000 barrels per day, immediately.
Dora,
Do you think Americans are idiots and need B. Hussein Obama to tell them how to maintain their cars?
Again,
This is a problem that B. Hussein Obama can’t inflate his way out of.
Were they idiots when Arnold Schwazenegger, Charlie Crist and the NASCAR folks told them the same things?
And of course he wasn’t telling anybody “how to maintain their cars” he was responding to a question at his townhall about what people can do now instead of waiting for government to act.
Cute slogan DTSI but it’s as empty as your head.
Dora,
Unlike liberal democrats, conservatives support ALL forms of energy independence including conservation including proper tire inflation, wind, solar, hydrogen, AND domestic oil drilling.
This is a problem that B. Hussein Obama can’t inflate his way out of.
Yeah, D2, I think most Americans are idiots — if you’re measuring by uncessarily wasting things.
CNC, the White House says offshore drilling is going to get an extra 200,000 bbls a day in 20 years, which is something like 70 million bbls/year.
Total use now is about 7 billion barrels/year Check your math before spewing forth.
hahaha. Look who’s touting the Tire Pressure Event that the Auto Alliance (which represents Chrysler, Ford, and GM, among others) sponsored for Congress last week.
and this is what Charles Territo, Director of Communications for the Auto Alliance had to say.
Last week, the Auto Alliance and the National Auto Dealers Association sponsored tire pressure checks for members of Congress and their staff who park in the Rayburn Office Building. Surprisingly, we found that most drivers had tires between 5 and 7 pounds under inflated — some had tires under-inflated by as much as 20 pounds. This significantly reduced their vehicle’s fuel economy.
We all share a goal of increasing fuel economy, as well as enhancing energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the fuel economy increases passed last year by Congress (and supported by the Auto Alliance) will help. But consumers want ways to fight back against high gas prices right now. By properly inflating tires, we can have an immediate impact on the more than 245 million vehicles currently on our nation’s roads and highways.
Earlier this year, we cosponsored the Alliance to Save Energy’s Drive Smarter Challenge. As part of this campaign we advocated maintaining proper tire pressure as one simple step consumers could take to increase fuel economy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It’s more important than you may think.
“Yeah, D2, I think most Americans are idiots”
Sarge,
The ones who vote for Barry Omaba certainly are!
dora has still not shown a site other than a left wing talking point bs spewing trough.
AGAIN. i am not saying it is true or false, and i don’t care either way actually, but the because i said so dora routine is old, tired, and unconvincing.
dora finds this funny: Did you catch the cryptkeeper and the golden girls? and Yoda? And how she kept referring to him as the wrinkly white haired guy?
ok, i find this hilarious: did you catch the big eared black guy and the vapid white chicks? and how they kept referring to him as the nappy haired skinny black guy.
let the racist calls begin. but dora has no problem bringing out the age card. and oh yeah, mccains hair turned white during his 5 years of torture, malnutrition and solitary confinement, you p.o.s.
“Unlike liberal democrats, conservatives support ALL forms of energy independence including conservation including proper tire inflation, wind, solar, hydrogen, AND domestic oil drilling.”
More empty headed and unsupported spewing from DTSI. But hey, you’re the one that posts the false email smears.
Obama supports the bipartisan bill (Democrats and Republicans DTSI in case you don’t know what bipartisan means) that includes some drilling.
“CNC, the White House says offshore drilling is going to get an extra 200,000 bbls a day in 20 years, which is something like 70 million bbls/year.”
Sarge,
The argument shouldn’t be about how much energy independence we will get by ending the liberal democrat ban on domestic oil drilling, by why the head liberal Nancy Pelosi won’t even allow a vote on it.
Dora,
As I said, proper vehicle maintence is a common sense thing and consevatives of course promote it, but it’s no solution to the need of increasing our supply of energy. Obama has NO solution for this.
In the unkindest cut of all, McCain’s spokesperson Tucker Bounds tells TMZ that on the subject of energy, Paris is deeper than Barack. He says, “Sounds like Paris is taking the ‘All of the Above’ energy approach that John McCain has advocated — both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama.”
now now OT, calm down. I didn’t bring out the age card Paris did. And McCain brought on Paris Hiltons response ad himself. He was referring to her as some empty headed bimbo. She really smacked him down. And I find that funny.
And OT has to bring out the POW card at every turn. The man gets a pass on everything because he was a POW. But that didn’t stop the wonderful GOP from insinuating he was the manchurian candidate during the 2000 election campaign now did it.
That ad must really be hitting a sore spot with folks like OT. I understand it was headlined on Drudge.
Dora says:
“Obama supports the bipartisan bill (Democrats and Republicans DTSI in case you don’t know what bipartisan means) that includes some drilling.”
Obama is very active in his flip flopping left and right in direct proportion to how much he is losing popularity in the polls. This guy is such a phony that I can’t believe you liberals still support him, but I suppose it’s too late now to get Mrs. Clinton back.
Last I heard McCain was in the lead. Obama would need at least a 10 to 15 point lead in the polls to have a chance, unless democrat voter fraud becomes even more of a serious problem this election.
Funny OT, because several days ago Obama endorsed the gang of 10 bipartisan bill that does just that. Even the Strib covered it. Guess you and Tucker missed that one too. All you hear out of McCain is drill here! drill now!
“Obama would need at least a 10 to 15 point lead in the polls to have a chance,”
pulling that one out of your @ss DTSI?
i found nothing funny- she is an empty headed bimbo with a sex video seen by millions. if she put out a video endorsing mccain, you would say the same thing about her, so you do not get to say she is right now.
i do not pull out the pow card, but i will not stand by as you ridicule his because of his white hair. learn something about how it happened before laughing- that is despicable.
i, along with every other normal person could give two sheets about what the hilton *hore has to say.
that is odd that the strib covered obama’s every move- its so unlike them. did they also mention the rousing welcome the koreans gave W today- I doubt it. they probably ignored the tens of thousands that came to cheer him and concentrated on the hundred that protested.
dtsi is correct about the 10-15 pts. I once saw a race just like this and the democrat did indeed need 15 points to win. I also saw on rightwingdirtbags.com that indeed 10 to 15 points was needed. they had contacted bob shnickengrueber of the dem campaign to confirm and it was true.
wow, i too can put up arguments just like dora and sarge make.
you have clearly jumped the shark tonight OT.
Wow!
I can see it’s a fulltime job (actually needs overtime) for dora: defending the Obama waffle machine.
You will be busy in the months ahead Dora.
I’ve learned to love clowns, so I will just roll with the unending new stances.
Sleep well. You have a monsterous BQ job ahead if you’re defending the empty suit, so get your rest…..
did you see any of the coleman and franken farm forum debate? old al said he has never called for or was in favor of a gas tax and said coleman was lying about it. al- don’t you realize that there is audio and video of everything now?
OT, follow MY link to KFC or stfu on the KFC thing — you’re acting like a little girl.
Did McPOW’s skin turn wrinkly becuz of his POW service, too, OT? I suppose every one of his “failings”, from his teeth to his lameness to his lapsing memory are POW-related. How ’bout the endless skin problems? POW? Is anything related to the fact that he’s just an ancient old man?
Looks like you need to take a pill, you’re more outraged than McDoof himself. I will grant you that McCain’s POWship is increasingly being used by him as the sole reason to vote for him….but he never mentions it, right?
Thanks for debunking the lying nonsense of Preacher Cash on the likely amount of off shore oil—over 1 trillion barrels(!), Jeebus, the tons of conservative fecal matter Cash must gulp down on a daily basis is truly incredible.
This is why national hearings in Congress on this Repub lunacy are needed–Team Repub simply sends out false email after email to the OTs, Cashes and 2Ds of Repub pinheadworld, with instructions to spread the lies far and wide.
This is yet another reason why the electorate is failing and why the country is rapidly falling into serious decline—conservative white males and their mind numbing stupidity and vicious willful ignorance are a huge problem that the country likely cannot overcome.
While the corporate MSM dutifully prints story after story about the “claims” of both sides without ever thinking that maybe it has a referring function to play. Just like here—BQ “reports” on the Repub drilling “claims” and House chamber stunt, without any reference to what independent experts think about the substance of the Repub propaganda.
Well I’m sure we’ll hear from DTSI and OT about this.
Bundler Collects From Unlikely Donors
Ibrahim Marabeh, who is listed in public records as a Rite Aid manager, at first denied that he wrote any political checks. He then said he was asked by “a local person. But I would like not to talk about it anymore.” Neither he nor his wife is registered to vote, …
At the Twilight Hookah Lounge, owned by Nadia and Shawn Abdalla, patrons smoke tobacco flavored with honey and fruit from a menu that includes the strawberry-flavored Sex on the Beach and the strong, orange-flavored Fuzzy Navel.
The Abdallas, who are not registered to vote, said in an interview that they recalled writing a check to an organization in Miami, because a person with that organization was a friend of their mother’s. They said they could not remember his name.
Nader, 39, and Sahar Alhawash, 28, of Colton, Calif, who at one point ran the Avon Village Liquor store, donated a total of $18,400 … The Alhawashes declined to comment about the donations. Abdullah Abdullah, a supervisor at several Taco Bell restaurants in the Riverside area, and his wife have donated $9,200 …
Reached at work, Abdullah said he knows little about the campaign. “I have no idea. I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “I’m involved in the restaurant business. …
Faisal Abdullah, 49, said he helped organize all of the contributions from members of his family. When he was asked who solicited the contributions from him, he said: “Why does it matter who? I’m telling you we made the contribution. We funneled it through the channel in Florida because that’s the contact we had. I was responsible for collecting it.”
Nah, probably won’t hear a peep. We’d only hear about it from them if it was tied to Obama.
Les, “drilling now” means an increase in American supply of 1% in 20 years. Obama correctly points out this is approximately the same amount that could be saved by properly inflating tires.
—
The problem I have with that argument is twofold. First, Tire inflation and vehicle maintenance doesnt preclude drilling, and those not doing these things are throwing their own money away, as well as wasting a scarce resource. Drill or not Drill, this point should be “drilled” into the minds of drivers. Second, It seems to me you (or your source) have suddenly increased the timeframe from 10 to 20 years…with no apparent basis in fact. This immediately raises the BS flag. Whatever the actual number is, no one has defined “when” they think we should open this 10 or 20 year window. So, is their position, like parth’s, never drill? Letting the leases and permitting the possiblility of drilling seems to be their problem, not the amount of oil produced.
As far as current leases go, I’d support a use it or lose it program. I wonder if the politicians would though, as it’s pure income to the fed government. Additionally, as Jay mentioned, what does Exxon’s current leases have to do with the newly established Parthian Offshore Oil conglomerate? They have no current leases.
And yes Obama has bundlers and collects big donations too.
In Obama Campaign, Big Donors Are a Major Force
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.
Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers. …
He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.
The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season. …
An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry. …
Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the country’s highest-paid hedge-fund executives, has given generously over the years to Republicans as well, and he recently helped to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million, dating back to 2007, in lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge-fund gains. (Mr. Obama has supported the higher tax rates.)
Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge-fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama. But he also gave to Mr. McCain, to Rudolph W. Giuliani and to Mitt Romney. …
Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers. …
Donations in June, the latest month for which Mr. Obama has disclosed his donors to the Federal Election Commission, illustrate the double-barreled nature of the campaign’s fund-raising. Mr. Obama brought in nearly $31 million in contributions of less than $200, his best month for small donations. But he also collected more than $12 million in contributions of $1,000 or more, the most since the first half of 2007.
Dora;
If your point is both of them use snakeoil salesmen to raise money from unsuspecting folks, I agree wholeheartly. Why would someone “uninterested” or not registered care about either candidate. Their parents should have taught them beter!
You did note that Sergeant also raised money for Hillary, right?
“As far as current leases go, I’d support a use it or lose it program. I wonder if the politicians would though, as it’s pure income to the fed government.”
Democrats in the House brought up a ‘use it or lose it’ bill twice but it was voted down. If they only needed a majority vote it would have passed but they needed 2/3 majority. The “oil patch” Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it.
Yeah, it’s in the article that I linked to that he raised money for Hillary.
The problem with Sergeant is that his contributors have raised red flags.
When there is a story about Obama raising money from “unsuspecting folks” I’ll be sure to post it.
oy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-LEyyf7d4
McCain at Sturgis Motorcycle Rally
Obama gets criticized for not being able to speak without a teleprompter? McCain is using a piano stand?? He flubs the simplest lines when he walks away from it. Cindy did a better job than he did. And what were his handlers thinking with that Miss Buffalo Chip reference? For gawd’s sake it’s not something to repeat with “First Lady” in the same sentence.
It’s kind of pitiful that they had to find a rally so he could get a crowd.
sarge, you can stfu also. as stated before, i could not care less.
dora- i will give your bundler story as much attention as the press gave to hillary’s chinatown fundraising.
Now this is just too good. And note the date when you click on the link.
Crisis Spurs Campaign To Save Oil
The television, radio and print advertisements are intended to persuade Americans to cut the amount of gasoline they use as a way of reducing the country’s dependence on ‘’unstable foreign sources of oil,'’ said David Bell, the president of Bozell, the agency that created the public service announcements. …
One television ad, which will be broadcast later this year, shows a gigantic oil gusher that is not coming from a well, but bursting forth from the valve on a tire. The announcer tells viewers that by slightly increasing the air pressure slightly in their tires, they can save 50,000 barrels of oil each day. …
It is the Government’s intention to use the campaign to give people simple steps they can take immediately and have a direct impact on fuel savings, said Energy Secretary James D. Watkins, who announced the new campaign at a news conference at the annual convention of the National Association of Broadcasters in Boston.
The Secretary said that if motorists followed the fuel-saving tips in the campaign, it would be possible to save 530,000 barrels of oil a day.
Here’s some good news, Although I have reservations about the “secretive units”
So in 18 years, the saving from proper vehicle maintenace has risen by an extimated 270 thousand bbl a day.
To bad they quit airing them.
Maybe they should start pointing out that underinflated tires are just as dangerous as not wearing a seatbelt.
Better yet, using the seatbelt analogy, give every cop a guage and issue tickets to those with underinflated tires when they get stopped…:-}
consumption has risen too Les.
Yes, that’s where the increase in savings would have come from. Certianly not from a decrease in consumption.
My point was taking the amount of oil that could be saved at face value, it’s a shame the Public Service announcements were not continured. Assumming you beleive they have any impact. At least one generation of drivers has hit the road in the interim.
It would have cost a whole $3.50 or so to update the figures in them.
Parth says:
any reference to what independent experts think about the substance of the Repub propaganda.
The trouble, yet again, is there are no
“independent” experts. The trouble with the parth’s of the world is their incredible !naivete! displayed here on a daily basis.
One only need to see the warp speed by which the 35W bridge was rebuilt, exceeding all “independent” expert predictions. Or the ongoing flipflopping on Iran’s nuclear status.
Independent expert = clown.
Dora’s right–simple measures could save a ton on the demand side.
The House Republicans are right, we could increase our domestic production by 20-30% in a few years if, and it’s a big IF with our lamO Dem Congress,we so desired.
This is a winning issue in the fall, as the left’s laughable disinformation campaign about drilling, highlights.
If drilling has no effect, why not stop all exploration? Doh! Stupid beyond belief…..
Yet, even parth and John kline are right, this is a finite resource and we better be working on plan B.
Les - it’s a Bush Admin/Department of Energey estimate - offshore drilling will provide an additional 200,000 barrels per day by 2030.
Notably, if you throw in ANWR (which is another 900,000 barrels a day), you’re still only up to about 30% of mandated fuel economy changes going in.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html
But I get your point Les, it is kind of a silly thing to be having an argument about. But the point that I agree with here is that they’re making it out to be like we’re going to pay $10/gallon unless they do this offshore drilling thing RIGHT NOW. That’s simply not true. It’s not going to have a very big impact - ever really. And I think that’s the point Obama is trying to make.
Where in the he11 is this “20-30%” garbage coming from?
Ok, lets accept the 18 years before impact theory, (2030 if ban lifted in 2012).
What is the objection to lifting the ban 4 years earlier?
Where in the he11 is this “20-30%” garbage coming from?
Well, Mr. Sunny, it isnt coming from the people who said North slope oil would deplete in the 1990’s….
Or that the 35W bridge would take years to rebuild…..
Experts here, experts there, everywhere and expert.
Statistically, a difficult concept for many people, 20% would be merely 1.6 bpd increase.
This is proabably achievable simply thru Alaskan sources, although I know Parth says “independent experts”, you know the ones quoted on MSNBC, say it’s only a million, but add in the ND boom, offshore possibilities, etc and it could be quite a bounty. And if motivated, it could be at breathtaking speed…..not 20 years (you know, when the 35W brdige will reopen)
Instead, Franken and Pelosi want us to drill in areas where there is no oil.
Now that’s, by definition, garbage.
As I said, this issue is a winner for the fall, even the empty suit has quickly flopped on this one.
but Parth and John Kline are still correct, it is a finite resource and plan B better be cooking.
Have a sunny day and go away…..
Here is another example of strib bias. i regularly look at the book bestseller list to look for new interesting titles to read. i have noticed that whenever a conservative writer has a number one bestseller, the strib always prints the local bestsellers instead and doesn’t return to the ny times bestsellers until it leaves the top position. the nytimes list finally reappeared today so i looked at the top titles and sure enough, 4 dem books in the top ten. incredible.
By 1.6 bpd — I assume you mean 1.6 million barrels per day.
I think you’re referring to the DOE’s estimate of production for 2030. When you say “alaskan sources” are you talking strictly about ANWR? Because if you are, your numbers are off. According to DOE, ANWR is estimated to be 900,000 by 2030 — it’s going to take some time to get everything in place and up and running…but still, I don’t know where 20% is coming from - we consume about 20 million barrels per day, so by my math, 1.6/20 = .08 — that’s 8%…by 2030 — and that’s according to the Bush administration (see my earlier link)
It may be a winner of an issue for the fall, but only because voters don’t understand the issue - that it’s not going to affect prices…even 5 years from now.
…keep looking for those black helicopters OT. You’ll find them someday.
“All” of the oil we would obtain by drilling includes a lot more than off-shore amounts. “All” means ALL libs.
…..we could increase our domestic production by 20-30% in a few years if
If you think our domestic production is 20 mil bpd then good luck to you. Me thinks you confuse consumption with production.
As for our resources, it’s about how many straws one puts in the milkshake.
Best movie of 2007, too.
The DOE has their lifers, and their estimates will reflect their values (i.e like climate models). In the event of WW3, you’d be amazed at the daily production from ANWAR by 1-2 years postwar.
More “anti-expert” ravings by the “side” that the facts don’t favor.
Now 6DJ is a petroleum geologist, as well as a famous climate scientist. Trained experts employed in a field don’t know jack, but a suburban conservative yahoo does.
Conservative White Male Syndrome, there’s no no getting away from it once you’re stricken.
So sayeth the parth….
Blah, Blah, Blah
Just pointing out each side has their own experts:
They all know plenty, but at least I ackowledge they each bring in their own point of view.
You simply criticize the experts (i.e the numerous climatologists who appear on Jason lewis) who disagree with parth, purveyor of his basement.
Some things never change….
Say, how long did it take to rebuild that bridge, parth?
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1225)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)