Values By Polling Data - Pelosi Allows Some Dems to Back Drilling
Posted by: Aaron Park | 08/05/2008 12:58 PM
Politico ran this story
California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet -- but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she's encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
Blogger's Note - There you have it, Democrats are using drilling as a prop and don't really intend to do anything about Gas Prices. WWCBD?
Pelosi's gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months -- even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.
Blogger's Note - I thought the Democrats were the party of the little guy, I guess not. Why do the right thing for America today when you think you will control tomorrow?
"The reality is we will have a new president in three months, and what Bush and the Republicans are trying to do amounts to a land grab for the oil companies," said one senior House Democratic aide involved with party strategy. "I don't think we have to give in at all pre-election -- we have many more options postelection."
It's a reality that Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) personally delivered to President Bush recently.
Rahall spent more than an hour last week talking to the president about energy. Bush spent the entire flight aboard Air Force One, and much of a subsequent limousine ride, grilling the West Virginia Democrat about legislative solutions to the high price of gasoline, Rahall said last week.
So, does the president think Congress can get anything done this year?
"No," Rahall replied in a short interview with Politico. "He's realistic about it."
Asked if Congress will produce a comprehensive energy bill in September before Congress adjourns again for elections, Rahall replied, "This year? No."
Instead, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources believes Democrats are all about 2009.
"We've laid the groundwork this year," Rahall said.
Democratic House aides say the energy agenda has been carefully gamed out in strategy sessions, and Pelosi always intended to take heat on gas prices while tacitly encouraging more vulnerable Democrats to publicly disagree with her and show their independence.
Freshman Democrats like Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Don Cazayoux of Louisiana have taken her up on the offer.
Blogger's Note: They are both sitting in Republican seats. Are you taking notes Charlie? When is the spin going to start?
Altmire has said a drilling vote "will happen," while Cazayoux, hoping to hang on to his seat in a conservative Baton Rouge-area district, on Friday sent a letter to Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) demanding a vote on more domestic oil exploration.
"There will be a vote," said Altmire, who faces a rematch with former GOP Rep. Melissa Hart this fall in the Pittsburgh suburbs.
Indeed, Congress must vote before Sept. 30 to renew the annual moratorium; otherwise, it will lapse on its own, giving states the right to decide whether private companies can search for potential drilling sites three miles offshore.
"My view is that if we have a vote, let's make it a rational policy," said Altmire, whose district includes viable coal and nuclear industries. "We can't let Republicans hold this issue hostage because of one vote."
Cazayoux, in his letter, says "the current debate seems to be bogged down in partisan one-upmanship."
To some extent, House Republicans seem to be playing right along with the strategy, taking Pelosi's name in vain dozens of times during their rebel House sessions over the past few days and making her the villain who won't allow oil drilling votes.
"It's grossly unfair to the Democrats who want a vote," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). "[Pelosi] needs to cut that out."
The Senate has also gone with a run-out-the-clock strategy, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calling for a bipartisan energy summit but promising no major energy votes. Reid embraced the drilling and conservation proposals of the bipartisan Senate "Gang of 10" last week, but he made further commitment on the energy debate.
Reid, like Pelosi, is expecting to have a much stronger governing majority in the Senate next year, so he has little incentive to give in to Republicans on energy policy as long as he thinks it won't hurt Democrats.
Even as they face heat from constituents during the August break, Democrats say they aren't going to cave in to popular pressure.
"We feel pretty comfortable with where we are," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.), who is close to the Democratic leadership. "This is a not a new issue. This just didn't happen today. We've been working on this for months."
Democratic insiders said that Pelosi and other party leaders were "not rattled" by the GOP floor rebellion, and at this point, it's not clear if the Democrats will even pay a price on energy. State-level polling conducted by Democrats suggests that voters still view President Bush and the GOP as the incumbent power in Washington, and Democratic strategists believe any anti-incumbent wave would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
Blogger's Note - Translation, screw America because we think Republicans are taking the fall here.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, one of the leaders of the rogue GOP House session, said he realizes that Democrats are "in a four-corners stall right now," and admits that "it gets more challenging" for Republicans if they lose more seats in Congress.
Democrats are also comforted somewhat by the fact that crude oil prices have gone down more than 10 percent from their summer highs, and if the U.S. economy enters a recession, prices may fall further due to slackening demand.
"There is no crisis on our side of the aisle," a top House Democratic leadership aide said. "We have a plan, and we will stick to it."
Blogger's Note - Translation, America, Bend Over. Charlie Brown for Congress...
Commenter's Note: There's a very good reason Democrats expect to control more seats in the House and Senate next year.
They have better ideas. Yes, even on energy, Aaron. Especially on energy. Even the average Joe understands that you can't pump your way to low oil prices in the long run unless demand comes down, too. Increasing supply while not taking strong action on demand only hastens an inevitable exponential increase in the price of oil.
It's a pay me now or pay me later situationn on the grandest scale imaginable. We can either take a small economic hit and make this energy transition sooner or stay in a la-di-da mode and get hit in the forehead with a 2X4 in ten or fifteen years.
It's the party of feel-good oil pumping versus the party of vision. That's how Americans see it and it's is one of many reasons why Democrats are expected to do very well at the polls in November. All Aaron's blogs do contribute to the total collapse of the permanent Republican majority.
Bob - your party has engaged in stopping Coal and Nuke Power since the 1970's.
We have shut down 1/2 of the refineries due to clean air laws, while environmental laws have made replacing the refineries impractical.
We have blackouts and we have fuel shortages because since the 1970's when Dems set policy - there has been an animus against expanding infastructure.
The Average Joe knows that -
BTW: Dan Logue and McClintock both won their primaries.
The Average Joe also knows that it is absurd to say - I only have $500 in my account, but I owe $100 a month for the next five years, so I am going to act like that $500 isn't there and drive on.
While that analogy is not 100% like the oil situation - it certainly mirrors it. It is also analogous to your logic.
Be honest - you think polar bears have more rights than people. You comments about my Mustang prove it.
Aaron,
Got any facts to support those statements? Thought about any culpability Republicans have for the current situation? Still sipping pure red Kool-Aid?
You and yours are ruining what was a great political party through your constant partisan pushing of tired political ideas that the American people no longer accept. They don't accept the politics of division, either.
I'm not a liberal, Aaron. As I've said before I just look like one to someone stuck so far in the corner of politics.
Wake up. The world has finite resources. Americans can create a massive new industry around energy but if we follow the Republican lead there will be a handful of "great" jobs tending pumping stations in the Arctic while Europe and Asia generate millions of jobs in the renewable energy sector.
I am very familiar with nuclear power and would welcome more plants in the U.S. The ramp has to be slow because the technology is as complex as it gets and people need to be trained to avoid problems during the expansion.
Responsible energy policy in a nutshell:
* Environmentally safe drilling in ANWR and offshore
* Well planned expansion of America's nuclear power base including a solution to fuel disposal
* Mandated reductions in total energy use through things like higher fuel standards, stronger building code requirements for energy (e.g., make solar panel installation in new homes in sunbelt states mandatory), mass transit funding, and the like. Brown's federal government energy reduction plan is a great idea and should be part of this.
* Massive investment in renewable energy research, production and marketing supported by tax incentives, federally-funded rebate programs and supporting infrasturcture spending (like charging stations for electric cars).
* Job training and income tax breaks for people who work in new energy jobs
* Increase in vehicle license fees or taxes (some penalty) for vehicles that get less than 25 mpg on a sliding scale (10 mpg is penalized much worse than 24 mpg).
* Require trucking companies establish backhaul management and fill X% of trucks with backhaul goods (see UK retail industry for example)
Benefits of the above include:
* New economy built around renewable energy and energy conservation investments
* Cleaner environment
* National defense benefits through reduction of dependence on foreign sources of energy
This is easy if we work together. It gets really tough, though, when half the country has their head in the sand...looking only for oil.
Bob
BOB!!! I 100% agree with what you just wrote about "Responsible Energy Policy"! Now, why are you supporting Charlie who is nowhere close to the position you articulated!?
This post was a re-print of an article in Politico. Please ask politico about the validity of their assertions. The part about Pelosi is irrefutible. She is an eco-freak.
When you stop railing on me for having selfish motives related to my Mustang - you articulate positions not far from mine. (on this issue)
As far as old and tired - I don't think the responsible energy policy is tired - what IS tired is Sierra-Club style governance that goes on a luddite-style rampage against progress. Since Democrats kneel at the Green Altar far more than Republicans do, it is a safe bet to tie the two groups together.
Aaron,
Politics is compromise. Republican political leaders espouse drilling-only solutions. Democrats call for alternatives. The result will be a hybrid solution. If Brown and Pelosi start the negotiation with their desired end state Republicans will move them well to the right to an undesired place. In similar fashion thoughtful Republicans know conservation and alternatives must be part of the mix and will eventually agree.
The flash point will be the role of the federal government in the solution. My plan includes a lot of government action...I'm surprised you would agree with it as written. I simply don't believe the free market can solve this problem without mandates, targeted tax breaks/increases to provide incentives, government investment in research, etc.
I don't really care about your Mustang. My point in mentioning it is that you like so many of us care about high gas prices so you should care about real solutions that will actually reduce the price at the pump. My argument is that you can't get there by just drilling.
Bob
Bob,
You don't understand Aaron or Tom; they don't understand, nor beleive in compromise. Its their way or the highway! What befuddles me is how they can be married, since with an attitude of "my way or the highway," it must be an interesting conversation around the dinner table.
Bob
Aaron is still stuck in the gotcha politics mode. He ignores Rick Warren's call for restoration the evangelical Christians' credibility at the public forum.
Instead, he continues to trade in shop worn political dog whistles, eg. Pelosi, eco-freak ad nauseum.
The thing of it is, Aaron is a substantial man in person. But give him a keyboard to tap on and he goes into, well it's like letting a tot run with sharp pointed scissors...
Keep up the good work Bob...
Lee
Thanks, Lee. I would love to see people talk to each other instead of trading barbs.
Bob
Bob,
I don't understand your economics. If supply increases in proportion to demand the price will the stay the same. At what point in the long run does this cease to be true?
If democrats do well this november, as you believe they will, it will be because so many voter HATE President Bush and he has an 'R' next to his name. The democrats have controled Congress for awhile now and they haven't done much of anything...useful that is.
If the Democrats had a vision worth acting on I'd say join'em. But they don't, and in my lifetime they haven't.
Anon,
There is a fixed supply and demand can continue ad infinitum. So at some point we run short...supply is insufficient to meet demand, prices rise. Demand falls--temporarily--and proces fall some but not all the way back down because there is now less total supply left than there was before. Prices go back up again as demand rises...the cycles continue with prices getting worse each time.
See, oil is unlike things like TVs or cars where supply issues are temporary and can be solved through adding more capacity. Oil is a raw material. Once it's gone, it's gone. And it's getting increasingly more expensive to bring enough new supply online to meet demand as existing fields pass the point of maximum production and begin to decline.
Remember on the Congress situation that:
1) You have an uncooperative Republican president who finally uncapped his veto pen and will use it again and again. This stops a lot of legislative progress in its tracks.
2) Democrats do not have 60 votes in the senate and cannot prevent Republicans from holding legislation hostage...which the Reps have done time and again over the past eighteen months.
You gotta decide what party has vision and who you want to vote for. I voted for Reagan (and switched from Dem to Rep) in 1980 because Reagan had vision and Carter didn't. For me it's not a party thing...it's the people. I see better people in the Democratic Party right now and I see a Republican Party that is divided and tired. Further, the Reps have caused the country untold damage. I left in 2004 because of that. I haven't seen enough change since then to believe that they have learned anything much after making such a mess. So I'm going to mostly vote for Democrats this time around. If they don't do well...then I'm not stuck on 'em. Hope you can be flexible, too. It's not the end of the world to vote for someone in the other party.
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for the response. The debate on the supply of oil goes both ways. Some say we have already started the downturn and that oil fields will quickly run dry. Others argue that we are decades from a downturn in production, even at current rates. I am not a scientist so I won't play one here. If it truly is too expensive to explore and drill for more oil then lifting the ban won't matter because oil companies won't do it anyway. If, on the other hand, it is cost effective to explore and drill then adding to the supply will at least allow for a smooth transition into an alternative source of energy (or several) if that is our course. I see no reason not to drill offshore right now.
Its about time President Bush began using his veto and at least attempted to stem some of spending. I wish he would have started years earlier, I would have appreciated him much more.
If I understand the vision of the democrats (the liberal side specifically, do they have a conservative side?) I want no part of it. Having vision is not attractive to me unless I agree with the vision.
Anon,
Fair enough. For many social conservatives it would be nigh on impossible to vote for a Democrat or any candidate who doesn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. I can understand that even if I don't agree that outlawing abortion is the solution to reducing abortions.
But on most other issues:
* National defense & foreign policy
* The economy
* Energy
* The environment
...to name a few, I don't see a Republican agenda that can compete with what Democrats are talking about, and the Republican track record on these issues is abysmal.
Remember, the price of oil climbed steadily throughout the first six years of the Bush Administration so those who blame Nancy Pelosi are pretty much full of s**t. But Republican leaders had lots of opportunities to create a solid long-term energy plan but opted instead to simply give oil companies huge tax breaks which have not led to the desired result because our largest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, is only the 17th largest oil company in the world and cannot make much of a difference. So we are still held hostage by foreign oil and domestic drilling cannot appreciably change that equation on its own.
So tell me, what is it that attracts you to the Republican agenda over what Democrats offer this year?
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
I never implied that I was more attracted to the Republican agenda (whatever that might be) moreso than the democrat agenda. I only know that the democrat agenda (that of Pelosi, Reid, and the current Obama agenda)do not attract me at all and I don't see how they will improve the current situation in this country.
I vote for individuals who I believe will not only improve our economic/environmental/etc.. position, but those who will do so in a cost effective and fiscally as well as socially conservative manner. You find me a democrat who will do that and I might be on board. As I said before, I haven't seen them. Charlie Brown and Barack Obama certainly don't fit those descriptions.