|
||||||||
|
« Hysterical Obama Send up by Gerard Baker |
Blog Home Page
| US Strengthening Zimbabwe Sanctions »
July 25, 2008 Washington Post: Why Not Debate More Drilling?While the New York Times continues on its self-destructive path, the role of the grown-up liberal in the media business now belongs solely to the Washington Post. The paper proves that once again this morning with their editorial, "No Drilling, No Vote - Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling", which has as its lede "Why not have a vote on offshore drilling?". The editorial certainly doesn't indicate that the Post agrees totally with the position of the Republicans on the expansion of domestic oil drilling, but they are scathing in their assessment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and their tactics on this issue. The Washington Post editors even bring up a pledge that the Democrats made when assuming the majority less than two years ago:
The Washington Post recognizes that allowing a debate and subsequent voting on drilling, in addition to being the right thing thing to do, is also being demanded by an overwhelming majority of the American people. Those same people who put the Democrats in charge of Congress in 2006 - by much less of a majority. So the Post really unloads on the extent to which the Democrats are going to in order to not have this debate and subsequent vote:
The Post ends the editorial with a rhetorical question -- if the Democrats have the better of the argument on drilling, as Speaker Pelosi has so loudly assured us, then why are they frightened of having a fair debate? Because the Democrats are, in fact, wrong on this issue. And both the Democrats and the Washington Post know that they will lose this debate and all follow-up votes, of course! On this issue, the Democrats have lost an important media ally in the Washington Post. The paper has done it politely, so far. After all, the Post could have pointed out the recent retreat in oil prices following President Bush's announcement that he was rescinding the executive order prohibiting additional offshore drilling. And wondered aloud what more would happen to speculation and the price of oil if Congress took similar action. I'm also certain that the Washington Post is aware of the suggestion made by Richard Brookhiser yesterday on National Review Online. He proposes that Bush pull a Harry Truman - call Congress back during their summer recess for an 11 day emergency session and demand that they debate and vote on drilling and appropriation bills. It's a win-win for Republicans. If drilling is allowed and appropriation bills are passed, it's good for the country and it can be pointed out that it took President Bush and the Republicans to force the Democrats to do it. If the Democrats continue to do nothing, it'll be on display for the whole country to see. The Democrats, and Barack Obama, will have inflicted a major, and very public, injury upon themselves immediately prior to the Democratic Convention. It would be literally impossible for the drive-by media to whitewash and spin that incident. Can you imagine the Washington Post's reaction after a debacle like that? And the follow-up reaction of the American public?
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
"It's the jobs stupid"
Does anyone know what the effect on domestic employment would be if we opened up offshore and ANWR drilling? These jobs would start from day 1 - not in 5 to 10 years...Right now we are "offshoring" $2 billion in potential job creation a day!
Posted by: Greg | July 25, 2008 01:26 PM
Michelle Maulkin had it right - the only place Democrats want to drill is YOUR WALLET! Democrats don't debate - they simply try to disqualify their opponants so they don't have to (Because they CAN'T).
Posted by: David J | July 25, 2008 01:36 PM
"... call Congress back during their summer recess for an 11 day emergency session and demand that they debate and vote on drilling and appropriation bills. It's a win-win for Republicans. If drilling is allowed and appropriation bills are passed, it's good for the country and it can be pointed out that it took President Bush and the Republicans to force the Democrats to do it. If the Democrats continue to do nothing, it'll be on display for the whole country to see."
Nice thought, but I doubt that it will happen. Much to my frustration -- and that of many other conservatives, I'm sure -- the Republicans, including President Bush, are just too timid to call the Democrats' bluff or even to just state, without mincing words, that their attitude, their words, and their actions are harmful to the security and the interests of the United States. If Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media whine that Republicans are questioning their patriotism, the proper response is, "D--n right, I am. But don't take my word for it. Just listen -- listen! -- to what your Congressional leaders, your presidential candidate, your newspapers (this means you, New York Times) have been spewing forth these last many years -- on terrorism, energy, military power, national defense, etc. And tell me, who among the friends and enemies of the United States do these sentiments resonate with? Are they people who wish the US well or people who wish them ill?"
Posted by: Frank | July 25, 2008 01:39 PM
An insightful article, makes you wonder about a few things. I hadn't put the Bush drilling announcement together with the drop in oil price, but I sure did notice the utter lack of productivity coming out of Congress these days.
Posted by: Rudy Lopes | July 25, 2008 01:52 PM
I would like someone to ask a Congressman (woman) at a press conference the following: "Who is your boss?". I think that it would be interesting to see what the answer would be and how long it would take to get it. It may be that they are well versed enough to not slip up on this, but I'm not sure. It appears that a vast majority feel that the National Party (D or R) is who they are working for and not the people that put them there. We have to start paying attention to what these people that we entrust to make decisions on our behalf are doing throughout their tenure and not only during election years. It is the only way that we are going to put people that have our values and interests into these positions.
Posted by: Jon | July 25, 2008 02:10 PM
On this issue the Democrats actions are harmful to the security and the interests of the United States.
A message that needs to be repeated.
This is so much more than high prices at the pump.
Posted by: Va. | July 25, 2008 02:10 PM
Only now, when President Bush and the republicans fear losing the November election does he rescind the ban to drill offshore. Automatically, the price of oil drops. I wonder what the price would be today if he rescinded the order at two dollars a gallon. Pelosi wont even consider it bringing it to the floor. Does she realize her hair color material and the plastics used in her facial reconstructions are made of petroleum products? Harry Reid says oil makes us sick. He should tell his Vegas buddies to turn off the lights at 9 pm. Both groups, Rebubs and Dems are a bunch of corrupt cowards.
Posted by: Guy | July 25, 2008 03:20 PM
Regarding Rep. Pelosi, we have the majority of voters in California's 8th district to thank - putzes. Next time, elect someone who has common sense and loyalty to our nation.
Regarding the spineless Republicans in the House, you should unwaveringly stand for Conservative policies and ideals. Or else, change your party affiliation and we'll vote in real Republican representatives.
Posted by: Mike S. | July 25, 2008 04:07 PM
Bush is phoning it in. It will only happen if current President Condi Rice says its ok. But of course she will be too busy trying get a falafel stand owner in Gaza a free house in Israel.
Posted by: J. Lichty | July 25, 2008 05:12 PM
The rich, elite, out-of-touch Democrats have handed the Republicans the campaign issue of the decade. It is too bad the Republicans are too obtuse and gutless to seize it, run with it, take back Congress and perhaps, save us from socialism.
Where oh where are the leaders?
Posted by: SunnyvaleKen | July 25, 2008 05:33 PM
I have been ready to cancel my subscription to the NYT for a long time; their refusing McCain along with their arrogance made me push the "no more" button. I have not been very happy with WaPo either, but their position here is a breath of fresh air.
However, lets do a little getting together, a little horse trading. The Dems need Repubs to support significant measures to increase R&D into solar power and "electric" (or even solar) cars. Wind is ok, too, but not in avian flyways; that is genocide or birdocide).
The Repubs need the Dems to be more reasonable on off-shore drilling (rigs are already there in many places); arctic drilling (leave ANWAR alone); nuclear power safety and waste storage development; and even clean coal (if there is such a thing). Everything should be tried.
John McCain is right in that we need "energy security" and as close to "energy self-sufficiency" as we can get. The oil cos need to give, too, because of their mind-boggling profits. Profits are fine, but give back a little. Let the corporations provide some leadership and show which ones are "American-oriented" compared to those that have sold out to The International Way (most of the corps supporting bHo). Both parties will have to give and Bush should provide some leadership on this for the first time in 7-1/2 years.
If they could discuss "together" and come up with a projected amount of internal energy/power development in so many years and begin trading, we might have hope and change.
Posted by: pyromancer76 | July 25, 2008 07:00 PM
The democrats will not debate because it is not about losing or jobs or us. It is about power. High gas prices, all this is about power, control, misery. The democrats do not want debate because they might have to reveal the real intentions which are the permanent acquisition of power, the control of the masses, where to live, what to drive, what to eat, how to live and only enough income to both never be a threat to power and never have enough to be truly independent. Like Norway, where no man has to little and no man has to much (I have yet to figure who decided what is to much). They hate individualism because it breeds people who have no need for the left and the failed ideas they offer. I have decided these are bitter angry people who hate themselves and thus hate us.
I had a friend who built expensive homes in SF (yeah even expensive for SF) and he always told me that they were mostly bitter angry people.
Makes one wonder doesn't it?
Posted by: DaveT | July 25, 2008 07:47 PM
Oil companies will give a lot back if they have profitable places to drill.
In any case what about people who have invested in the oil companies? Don't the people with oil in their retirement plans deserve the profits they risked for? How about widows and orphans?
BTW wind and solar are coming along nicely.
And then there is this: What Is The Rush? We actually should put off or never start massive government programs in the wind and solar area. The technology gets better every year. The longer we can hold off the less the waste.
Posted by: M. Simon | July 25, 2008 08:22 PM
The Dems have inserted themselves between a rock and a hard place on:
A: Energy
B: Iraq
C: Afghanistan (by asserting that the surge would do no good in Iraq, but we need one in Afghanistan...huh?)
D: Illegal immigration
Good job, Nancy.
Posted by: Ed | July 25, 2008 08:27 PM
When are we going to realize that the politicians of both parties have been bought completely and cheaply. If we start running some games, like a Hydrogen Rodeo, we'll get to see American innovation again. After spending billions in R&D, the Department of Energy refuses to comment on the idea of having an actual contest to see what people have running. GasCar season! Scores of contestants and three main events. Cowboy up and quit waiting for the guvment to solve our problems!
Posted by: SenatorMark4 | July 25, 2008 08:33 PM
Sunny,
The only thing I agree with you one is Bush failing to show any leadership. Otherwise, you just exhibited everything that's wrong with liberals - you want compromise where none is warranted and you want government to oversee it all.
An company's job is to make a profit and it doesn't stop when it's made "enough," since there is no such thing as "mind boggling profits," just very happy shareholders of whom you should be one if you want to share in those profits. Then come back and we'll see how boggled your mind is.
Posted by: Ted | July 26, 2008 01:11 AM
The Greens are the most extreme and dogmatic group in the US. They knowingly and willingly destroyed dozens of small logging towns in the West by using the Spotted Owl nonsense to stop logging.
They were able to almost shut off the water to the Kalamath Valley by using the "endangered sucker fish" pretext. This would have turned the area into a desert and destroyed the lives of thousands of people.
They literally destroyed the lives of millions of third world people by in effect outlawing DDT, the only effective means to control malaria spreading mosquitos.
By preventing us from using our petroleum and other energy resources, they cause economic hardship, prevent hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs in that industry, ruin our balance of payments, fund our terrorist enemies, and slow our economic growth and prosperity.
They certainly belong on America's enemy list.
Posted by: RR | July 26, 2008 09:48 AM
Liberals talk about oil companies "giving back". Well, by exploring for, bringing up, transporting, refining and distributing oil and gasoline they are GIVING us something of great value.
So none of this "give back" bullshite please.
For some reason every liberal on the planet thinks it's rational and just to demand of private businesses that they lower their prices and reduce their profits. O'reilly was making that argument the other day, when he demanded that Big Oil lower its profits "for the good of the folks", and "for the nation".
What arrogance! What stupidity!
Posted by: Anna Keppa | July 26, 2008 11:04 AM