In addition to “saving the planet” here is what Nancy Pelosi said yesterday at an end-of-session roundtable in defense of her not allowing a vote on drilling:
"I will not ... give the administration an excuse for its failure."
Now that’s funny. The Bush administration has produced a balanced and thoughtful energy strategy that has a strong commitment to alternative energy along with appropriate use of traditional energy sources. The Democratic controlled Congress has refused to even consider it. I have read it, but I doubt if Nancy Pelosi has bothered.
The Bush administration has accomplished more regarding alternative energy research than any administration in history. Certainly very little was done by Clinton/Gore. Speaker Pelosi’s answer - go after evil speculators and drive the oil futures market off-shore, confiscate “windfall profits” from oil companies so they’ll have less money to fund exploration, release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, sue OPEC, promote corn-based ethanol, count on alternatives that are decades away from prime time, block nuclear power, and on and on.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Pelosi has been holding votes on measures aimed at addressing gas prices, such as legislation to crack down on speculators in energy commodity markets and a measure to force Bush to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But here's the catch: The bills have won majority support, but failed to get the two-thirds backing needed to pass under special rules Pelosi has used to keep Republicans from offering a drilling measure on the House floor.”
These bills have been passing by a wide majority but aren’t going forward due to the two-thirds rule. It is the only way she under congressional rules can block the GOP from offering any amendments.
Some democracy, huh? Shouldn’t the House at least be allowed to vote on this stuff? Now a group of democrats are defying Pelosi by working with the GOP on a compromise bipartisan bill to increase domestic production and also accelerate conservation and alternative energy sources. But with Nancy banging the gavel today to adjourn for 5 weeks, I guess it will have to wait.
Some in the GOP are so frustrated that they have asked President Bush to call Congress back into emergency session, which he can do under Article II of the Constitution, to deal with the energy issue. No summer break until Pelosi/Reid actually do something!
From FoxNews.com:
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said, “I just saw one of the Democrats interviewed on television. The question was, if [gas] was $10 a gallon and you knew exactly where to get it in Alaska or on the coast, would you drill there, and there was no answer."
I’d like to know which Democrat that was. I’ll bet he was like a deer caught in the headlights. Nancy Pelosi's desperate maneuvers are only reinforcing that Congress is the cause of much of our energy crisis, not the White House.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Time For Nancy Pelosi's Summer Break
Nancy Pelosi continues to earn a reputation as the least effective Speaker of the House in generations. She also has an ideological coarseness that is distinctly unpleasant, and is not becoming to the with the office of the Speaker.
Her abdication, aided and abetted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of one of Congress’ primary roles, appropriations, is appalling. Congress will adjourn today for a five week break without passing a single appropriations bill - the first time this has happened since the 1950's.
Under Pelosi/Reid Congress continues to spend a great deal of time and money investigating manufactured "scandals" like Valerie Plame and Justice Department hirings and firings. Meanwhile, there has been no investigation of “Friends of Angelo” corruption even as Congress passed the “Bank of America/Countrywide Financial Bailout Act”. Why? Because Democrats, including Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe Chris Dodd, are dirty with it. Contrast this with the Bush executive branch who had no qualms about indicting Republican Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges in an election year.
Ms. Pelosi has spent all summer maneuvering to make sure no vote on off-shore drilling occurs. To do so she has had to resort to virtually shutting down Congress. If a vote to authorize new domestic production was allowed, there is a good chance it would pass.
Today's Wall Street Journal commenting on the failure to pass an anti-speculation bill said, "But the legislation actually failed to become law -- by design. It needed a two-thirds majority because Speaker Pelosi suspended the rules to prevent Republicans from offering amendments, drilling among them. Ms. Pelosi had decreed that she would not permit a roll-call vote under any circumstances, even if it stopped her own goal of wrecking the U.S. futures market."
When questioned during an interview by Politico about her opposition to any expansion of domestic energy production, she testily replied, "I'm trying to save the planet, I'm trying to save the planet." Since Ms. Pelosi opposes oil, coal and nuclear, 93% of all potential energy production is off limits, with viable alternatives many years away.
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page suggested that this sort of behavior could have repercussions come November. I, however, am under no such illusions about Speaker Pelosi losing an election this fall. She is no doubt regarded as a hero to her loony left district in San Francisco. But I am not aware of a single position that Speaker Pelosi advocates that stands up to intellectual scrutiny.
Her abdication, aided and abetted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of one of Congress’ primary roles, appropriations, is appalling. Congress will adjourn today for a five week break without passing a single appropriations bill - the first time this has happened since the 1950's.
Under Pelosi/Reid Congress continues to spend a great deal of time and money investigating manufactured "scandals" like Valerie Plame and Justice Department hirings and firings. Meanwhile, there has been no investigation of “Friends of Angelo” corruption even as Congress passed the “Bank of America/Countrywide Financial Bailout Act”. Why? Because Democrats, including Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe Chris Dodd, are dirty with it. Contrast this with the Bush executive branch who had no qualms about indicting Republican Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges in an election year.
Ms. Pelosi has spent all summer maneuvering to make sure no vote on off-shore drilling occurs. To do so she has had to resort to virtually shutting down Congress. If a vote to authorize new domestic production was allowed, there is a good chance it would pass.
Today's Wall Street Journal commenting on the failure to pass an anti-speculation bill said, "But the legislation actually failed to become law -- by design. It needed a two-thirds majority because Speaker Pelosi suspended the rules to prevent Republicans from offering amendments, drilling among them. Ms. Pelosi had decreed that she would not permit a roll-call vote under any circumstances, even if it stopped her own goal of wrecking the U.S. futures market."
When questioned during an interview by Politico about her opposition to any expansion of domestic energy production, she testily replied, "I'm trying to save the planet, I'm trying to save the planet." Since Ms. Pelosi opposes oil, coal and nuclear, 93% of all potential energy production is off limits, with viable alternatives many years away.
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page suggested that this sort of behavior could have repercussions come November. I, however, am under no such illusions about Speaker Pelosi losing an election this fall. She is no doubt regarded as a hero to her loony left district in San Francisco. But I am not aware of a single position that Speaker Pelosi advocates that stands up to intellectual scrutiny.
Barack Obama - A Career Without Conviction
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
The above link is to a New York Times article about Barack Obama. I applaud the New York Time’s for a thoughtful and insightful piece. I wish more of their work was like this.
I find it fascinating the lengths Obama has gone to over the years to not take a definitive stand on anything. He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate, instead of casting "yes" or "no" votes on legislation. In 12 years at the University of Chicago he never published a scholarly article. In the U.S. Senate he has not taken the lead on any issue. His law school students admired his intellect and his ability to parse the complexities of issues but were frustrated by his unwillingness to ever say what he believed.
In the NYT’s article, libertarian colleague Richard Epstein summed it up well when he lamented that Barack Obama would not venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”
When you combine this with his wholesale reversals on almost every key campaign position, like the FISA bill with retroactive immunity (he had promised to lead a filibuster against this), public funding for campaign finance, or gun control, it leads me to one conclusion. He is deeply unprincipled.
Can you with any conviction say what it is Obama believes? I can’t. Ronald Reagan spent a decade meeting and speaking with groups in every corner of the country to articulate his plan to defeat communism, promote smaller government, and recharge the economy by cutting taxes. As president, Ronald Reagan governed according to his principles; there was no confusion. Barack Obama has spent 20 years taking extreme care to ensure no definitive position could ever be ascribed to him.
Is a thoughtful listener and questioner and an accomplished facilitator who cannot take a definitive, principled stand the best person to be President? Can he make the “least bad choice” or will he be paralyzed by his ability to see the unfortunate consequences of every course of action? In this regard, Barack Obama is a very risky proposition.
The above link is to a New York Times article about Barack Obama. I applaud the New York Time’s for a thoughtful and insightful piece. I wish more of their work was like this.
I find it fascinating the lengths Obama has gone to over the years to not take a definitive stand on anything. He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate, instead of casting "yes" or "no" votes on legislation. In 12 years at the University of Chicago he never published a scholarly article. In the U.S. Senate he has not taken the lead on any issue. His law school students admired his intellect and his ability to parse the complexities of issues but were frustrated by his unwillingness to ever say what he believed.
In the NYT’s article, libertarian colleague Richard Epstein summed it up well when he lamented that Barack Obama would not venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”
When you combine this with his wholesale reversals on almost every key campaign position, like the FISA bill with retroactive immunity (he had promised to lead a filibuster against this), public funding for campaign finance, or gun control, it leads me to one conclusion. He is deeply unprincipled.
Can you with any conviction say what it is Obama believes? I can’t. Ronald Reagan spent a decade meeting and speaking with groups in every corner of the country to articulate his plan to defeat communism, promote smaller government, and recharge the economy by cutting taxes. As president, Ronald Reagan governed according to his principles; there was no confusion. Barack Obama has spent 20 years taking extreme care to ensure no definitive position could ever be ascribed to him.
Is a thoughtful listener and questioner and an accomplished facilitator who cannot take a definitive, principled stand the best person to be President? Can he make the “least bad choice” or will he be paralyzed by his ability to see the unfortunate consequences of every course of action? In this regard, Barack Obama is a very risky proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
