Nancy Pelosi, by indicating to Larry King her willingness to allow a vote on offshore drilling, might cause some Republicans to think that they’ve won the issue.
They haven’t. It’s vitally important to remember that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s word cannot be trusted, as even her supporters have found out.
Nancy Pelosi was, is, and always will be against expanded oil drilling because she is beholden to her environmental special interest groups. It’s safe to assume that the unveiling of this new position that Larry King forced out of her (using his usual hard-hitting interviewing techniques) is but a ploy.
Her real plan is simple. She has to hold a vote on the offshore drilling moratorium in September, or else the moratorium will expire on its own, which would be a huge embarrassment for her.
So she’s going to schedule a vote on a bill, not about renewing the moratorium (which she knows will fail), but on allowing drilling, and will load that bill with amendments that would be very painful for Republicans to accept.
If the GOP balks, Pelosi and the Democrats will attempt to claim that the Republicans never wanted anything else but drilling - that this has all been a grand political stunt.
The media will merely amplify Pelosi’s talking points. Therefore, Pelosi believes that the Republicans will have to vote for her bill, and she’s attempting to cause the greatest amount of political damage she can to the GOP on an issue she can’t otherwise win.
The GOP, at least in the House, is in front on this issue, and it’s important for them to stay in front. That means beginning the counter-attack on Pelosi’s transparent strategy now.
I agree with Patrcik Casey!
An article in The Hill is rightfully critical about how Pelosi announced her ‘Revelation’ on offshore drilling:
Pelosi intentionally timed her reversal on CNN’s “Larry King Live” to fall well before the political intensity of the party conventions and into a news cycle dominated by the Olympics.
The Hill article goes on to say:
As she announced her willingness to hold a drilling vote Monday night, she stressed that it would have to be part of a larger energy package.
And the contents of that package might include some items that would be tough for Republicans and the energy industry to swallow, like a renewable portfolio standard and the Democrats’ signature “use it or lose it” legislation
...In the CNN interview, she indicated that drilling, which she’s opposed for years, could be accompanied by “great things” like expansion of wind power, solar energy and biofuels.
She hinted that the package could include the Democratic leadership’s “use it or lose it” plan to force drillers to produce their existing federal leases, more regulation of greenhouse gases, and that the federal government should get more money for the oil.
Joel - 08:08am on 08/17/2008
Thanks for putting this on the front page, Rob! Had it on the Reader Blogs yesterday.
robert108 - 08:08am on 08/17/2008
When I read “Pelosi crumbles”, with that picture on the front page, I had visions of her botox paralyzed face coming off in slabs like the arctic ice calving icebergs! Heh.
Proof - 09:08am on 08/17/2008
Why would Republicans not support other sources of energy? Hell, even Robert is for supporting other sources of energy other than drilling for oil.
Hannitized - 09:08am on 08/17/2008
Robert supporting other types of energy.
I have said time and time again that kicking the enviornazis out of the energy legislation loop is what is necessary. After that, we will be free to develop our own energy resources in whatever ways are necessary.
So once we defeat the “environazis”, whomever these jew-hating people are, we can begin to develop our own energy resources, in any way that is necessary.
I like that idea.
Hannitized - 09:08am on 08/17/2008
Rob, when I read Pelosi crumbles, I had this picture of a lifesized figure of Pelosi made out of blueberry muffin mix in Proofs house and Poof eating the blue-berries from the nipples only to have his edible statue crumble onto the floor.
Hee!
Hannitized - 09:08am on 08/17/2008
Why would Republicans not support other sources of energy? Hell, even Robert is for supporting other sources of energy other than drilling for oil.
We should support other sources of energy that are actually useful to the market.
Things like ethanol and wind power are a burden on the energy markets, eating up tax dollars that could be given back to the taxpayers, and provide energy at rates that are much more expensive than sources we already have available to us.
Why should I support ethanol when gas is cheaper to use?
Rob - 10:08am on 08/17/2008
There is plenty of evidence provided by reputable public university and governmental agencies to support the use of corn ethanol over petroleum gasoline in almost every way imaginable, from decreasing fuel prices, reducing pollution emissions, increasing net energy, improving the U.S. GDP, and others.
The EPA, American Lung Association, Argonne Laboratory, Iowa State University, University of Illinois, U.S. Department of Energy, and many others would best be researched on these topics.
Hannitized - 10:08am on 08/17/2008
The point is that she “didn’t” crumble. The moratorium of offshore drilling expires on Sept 1st.
Her real plan is simple. She has to hold a vote on the offshore drilling moratorium in September, or else the moratorium will expire on its own, which would be a huge embarrassment for her.
So she’s going to schedule a vote on a bill, not about renewing the moratorium (which she knows will fail), but on allowing drilling, and will load that bill with amendments that would be very painful for Republicans to accept.
Joel - 10:08am on 08/17/2008
There is plenty of evidence provided by reputable public university and governmental agencies to support the use of corn ethanol over petroleum gasoline in almost every way imaginable, from decreasing fuel prices, reducing pollution emissions, increasing net energy, improving the U.S. GDP, and others.
I’d like you to explain to me how ethanol reduces fuel prices when it’s more expensive than gasoline when sold without subsidy, and even with subsidy is less efficient than gasoline and causes a 6 - 12 mpg drop off in fuel mileage? Something that still makes it a more expensive alternative to gas?
Do you even know anything about ethanol? Or are you just getting behind it because conservatives don’t like it and thus you think you need to support it?
I think you’d come off as a lot more intelligent if you thought about your positions instead of just basing them on what people you hate think.
I agree with Patrcik Casey!
An article in The Hill is rightfully critical about how Pelosi announced her ‘Revelation’ on offshore drilling:
The Hill article goes on to say:
Thanks for putting this on the front page, Rob! Had it on the Reader Blogs yesterday.
When I read “Pelosi crumbles”, with that picture on the front page, I had visions of her botox paralyzed face coming off in slabs like the arctic ice calving icebergs! Heh.
Why would Republicans not support other sources of energy? Hell, even Robert is for supporting other sources of energy other than drilling for oil.
Robert supporting other types of energy.
So once we defeat the “environazis”, whomever these jew-hating people are, we can begin to develop our own energy resources, in any way that is necessary.
I like that idea.
Rob, when I read Pelosi crumbles, I had this picture of a lifesized figure of Pelosi made out of blueberry muffin mix in Proofs house and Poof eating the blue-berries from the nipples only to have his edible statue crumble onto the floor.
Hee!
We should support other sources of energy that are actually useful to the market.
Things like ethanol and wind power are a burden on the energy markets, eating up tax dollars that could be given back to the taxpayers, and provide energy at rates that are much more expensive than sources we already have available to us.
Why should I support ethanol when gas is cheaper to use?
There is plenty of evidence provided by reputable public university and governmental agencies to support the use of corn ethanol over petroleum gasoline in almost every way imaginable, from decreasing fuel prices, reducing pollution emissions, increasing net energy, improving the U.S. GDP, and others.
The EPA, American Lung Association, Argonne Laboratory, Iowa State University, University of Illinois, U.S. Department of Energy, and many others would best be researched on these topics.
The point is that she “didn’t” crumble. The moratorium of offshore drilling expires on Sept 1st.
Her real plan is simple. She has to hold a vote on the offshore drilling moratorium in September, or else the moratorium will expire on its own, which would be a huge embarrassment for her.
So she’s going to schedule a vote on a bill, not about renewing the moratorium (which she knows will fail), but on allowing drilling, and will load that bill with amendments that would be very painful for Republicans to accept.
I’d like you to explain to me how ethanol reduces fuel prices when it’s more expensive than gasoline when sold without subsidy, and even with subsidy is less efficient than gasoline and causes a 6 - 12 mpg drop off in fuel mileage? Something that still makes it a more expensive alternative to gas?
Do you even know anything about ethanol? Or are you just getting behind it because conservatives don’t like it and thus you think you need to support it?
I think you’d come off as a lot more intelligent if you thought about your positions instead of just basing them on what people you hate think.