Power Politics
Dems, Drillers Face Off on Energy Future at DNC
By Richard Martin, 8-26-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Renew this | |
|
Shouting to make themselves heard over a clutch of leather-lunged McCain supporters at the Democratic Convention in Denver today, a group of House Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of CALIF, presented the case for a right-angle turn in direction for America’s energy policy.
“The two oilmen in the White House for too long have pursued policies that have served Big Oil,” declared Pelosi, “and not the needs of American consumers and taxpayers.”
The press event was held in front of Denver’s historic Union Station, next to a new hybrid-fuel RTD bus that will shortly go in service in the city’s public transportation fleet. Along with a crowd of a couple of hundred convention-goers, in attendance were a dozen or so vocal Republicans chanting “Drill here! Drill now!”
(In contrast to the multi-ethnic Democratic audience, the McCain supporters, it must be said, were uniformly young and white. Wearing below-the-knee madras shorts, several looked as if they’d just come off the golf course at the Dan Quayle County Club.)
“I thank the McCain people here today,” remarked Pelosi at one point, when the shouting had died down, “for making clear the distinctions between us and them.”
The Democrat representatives are pushing a “comprehensive energy strategy” crafted to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, help slow global climate change, promote a strong renewable-energy economy, and cut fuel prices. Pelosi quoted former Republican president Richard Nixon, who in the early 1970s pledged to make it a “national goal” by the end of that decade to make sure that “the United States is not dependent on any other country for the energy it needs.”
That didn’t happen then, and it’s a distant goal now. Energy experts like Robert Bryce, the editor of Energy Tribune and the author of the new book Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence, point out that America is inextricably woven into the global energy economy, and no amount of rhetoric or legislation, from either party, will change that.
And since it retook power in 2006, the Democratic congressional leadership has not exactly pioneered innovative and courageous legislation on energy. The energy bill of 2007, which took more than a year to pass, is a triumph of legislative expediency, including big subisidies for dubious corn-based ethanol programs.
Nevertheless, as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer pointed out, this House has succeeded in passing the first increase in vehicle emissions standards in 32 years. Dismissing the oil-production proponents attempting to shout him down, Hoyer proclaimed, “Sophomoric chanting will not make us energy independent!”
The Democrats also deplored the “culture of cronyism” in the Bush Administration that has led to abuses like the Dept. of Interior’s “royalty-in-kind” program, under which energy producers repay the U.S. Treasury in oil rather than cash for mineral leases on public lands. That program was examined in a Denver Post investigative report on Sunday Aug. 24, the day before the convention opened, that said the Interior Dept.’s Inspector General is launching an investigation into possible abuses of the system.
Falling into traditional Democratic rhetoric to match the cries of “Drill now,” Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia said that “Big Oil has been pulling the wool over Americans’ eyes for far too long.”
Rahall’s next comment, though, was inarguable: “It’s time for the Democrats and Congress to step up to the plate and pass energy legislation that is truly responsible” and, finally, create an energy policy “that is accountable to the American people.”
[End of article]Richard, nowhere in your column do you mention how Pelosi is invested with Pickens and his scam. Are you saving that for another column? Do you need the links showing how Pelosi is compromised and how Pickens is scaming to take billions of gallons of water and sell it for his personal profit? I guess the color of shorts is more important.
Comment By thedirtydemocrat, 8-26-08I think ichard Martin did a good job reporting what was factual. The hearsay of Craig Moore and other smear meisters are just that. Typical of the Rethug crowd; no proof - a good loud lie will do.
Comment By Craig Moore, 8-27-08TDD, my last reply to you didn't make it. I'll try again.
For your facts start here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm
Pelosi admits she is invested with Pickens but claims no conflict of interest eventhough she blocks a vote on drilling to boost wind power. Here's a real head scratcher, when Pelosi was interviewed by Brokaw about her conflict of interest, she claimed natural gas is an alternative energy source like wind and NOT a fossil fuel. Scary!
Again, it appears writing about madras shorts is more important than revealing the real story that involves depleting the aquifer that stretches the Rocky Mountain Front. There was a time when the Sierra Club's Carl Pople excoriated PIckens over his water plans. Now he sits silently while riding pn Pickens jet.
I'm still having trouble getting my comment posted. I think it has to do with the BW link. Below replace "dot" with the symbol, "."
TDD, For your facts start here: wwwdotbusinessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm
Pelosi admits she is invested with Pickens but claims no conflict of interest eventhough she blocks a vote on drilling to boost wind power. Here's a real head scratcher, when Pelosi was interviewed by Brokaw about her conflict of interest, she claimed natural gas is an alternative energy source like wind and NOT a fossil fuel. Scary!
Again, it appears writing about madras shorts is more important than revealing the real story that involves depleting the aquifer that stretches the Rocky Mountain Front. There was a time when the Sierra Club's Carl Pople excoriated PIckens over his water plans. Now he sits silently while riding pn Pickens jet.
And Mr. McCain has had over $1,000,000.00 in donations from biug oil as well as an extra $2,000,000 donated from big oil to the Rethugs in congress who are shouting so loudly "Drill, Drill now, drill here!" Facts are a real binder Mr. Moore.
Comment By Craig Moore, 8-27-08TDD, you have been into the foolade. Here's what factcheck says as to you erroneous assertion: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
>>>>>>>>
Obama's Overstatement
August 4, 2008
Updated: August 6, 2008
An Obama ad says McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil." The total is actually $1.3 million.
Summary
Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.
The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.
Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion...
In Big Oil's Pocket?
It bears repeating, as we've reminded readers before, that oil companies themselves don't make donations. It's illegal under federal law for corporations to donate directly to candidates and has been since 1918. The ad refers to donations from executives and employees of oil companies, given either directly or through company-sponsored political action committees, or PACs.
Both candidates accept donations from individual employees of oil companies. In fact, when Obama claimed in an ad last March that "I don't take money from oil companies," we criticized him for being a little too slick. The CRP puts Obama's total from oil and gas donors at $394,465.
Based on CRP's figures, McCain's oil and gas donations account for just 92 cents out of every $100 he's raised. Obama's oil and gas total comes to 12 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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<