Article

2005-12-22 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-12-22 11:04|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Last time I checked, the Republicans have a majority in both houses. So why the f$%&k can't they pass key legislation? When the Democrats held both houses they ruled with an iron fist. Maybe the Republicans are better off as a minority party after all.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2005-12-22 11:24|| 2005-12-22 11:24|| Front Page Top

#2 J - lol, how true. The key word is Senate. See my post on the Mexico seeks anti-fence alliance for my take on this, as well.

It's a Senate tradition to be total whores and posturing wastrels of no value. Must be that 6 year thingy combined with the 90 minute attention span.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 11:32|| 2005-12-22 11:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Actually the Dems didn't do that well when they controlled.

For example, the Dems have had repeal of Taft-Hartley in their platform for 20+ years and never got to closure on this. They tried and failed to mandate state education spending; they were forced to swallow NAFTA and other trade agreements, they were forced to agree to welfare reform and tax cuts.

Posted by mhw 2005-12-22 11:42|| 2005-12-22 11:42|| Front Page Top

#4 teh Dems bemoan our dependence on foreign oil and rather than seek domestic sources, would rather tax us into mass transit to add $ for their social ~~vote-buying~~ nanny state. I have no use for RINOs who helped and abetted this maneuver - they should've forced the Donks to filibuster all thru the holiday, keeping them in DC

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-22 12:20|| 2005-12-22 12:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Jonathan,

It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. The Republicans have only 55. And, they don't do filibusters like Mr. Smith any more.

Remember who has the record for longest filibuster, and why.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2005-12-22 12:54|| 2005-12-22 12:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Remember who has the record for longest filibuster, and why.

Hmm, probably some Southern Democrat defending segregation by reading out of a phone book.

MHW, you're right that the Democrats suffered some setbacks, but if I recall welfare reform, tax cuts, and NAFTA occurred after the Republicans took over. In their heyday in the '60s and '70s the Democrats got pretty much everything they wanted and crushed any hint of dissent within their party. Republicans are much more lenient with their "mavericks" (christ I hate that term) and so you get RINOs like Chaffee and Snowe.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2005-12-22 15:01|| 2005-12-22 15:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Republican's lenient with their mavericks, I dunno, the R's have their shit together as it were on messaging and most of their issues are tight and votes tighter controlled.

This is about constituents and their responses to this. Check the polls and then check the votes.
I'm betting they coincide. Remember, being a politician is above all else about staying in power once in power.

These guys voted this down because of constituent backlash, not because they are mavericks. This issue is not an easy debate, though it may be framed as such by many. And let's not fool ourselves that Alaskan oil reserves are going to solve our nation's energy dependence on foreign oil fellas, just aint.

Maybe it will be a philosophical victory for those seeking to bring energy development back home to the US, but the oil companies and their lobbyist have no intention of cutting dependence on foreign energy sources they control access to, ask .com he's got some experience in this area. I'm sure some other regulars here know the game as well.

While I'm all for domestic energy development, let's talk coal to fuel, there's a real viable alternative to foreign oil. Anyone who tells you drilling Alaska is going to take us away from foreign energy dependence is bullshitting.

However, as I mentioned, there's enough coal here in the US, namely Montana & Dakotas to do some serious harm to a foreign energy market.

But why look for domestic sources when we can keep bleeding the middle east dry?

I'm all about taking the Arab's shit from them and not letting the Chinese get ahold of it, lets let Alaska be wild, as God knows we ain't got enough places like Alaska left in the world. I ain't saying that we shouldn't be developing infrastructure, I'm just saying let's choose wisely.

That's a country boy's take though, and I'd rather hunt and fish Alaska than facilitate some rapper or rich asshole's housewife driving a Hummer to the hair salon and soccer practice any day of the damn week so...

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 17:10|| 2005-12-22 17:10|| Front Page Top

#8 well, Elvis, if you can hunt and fish in ANWR, you're a better outdoorsman than anyone else - look at the pictures of the actual area, not some fuzzy lying propaganda by the Wilderness Society. It's cold, barren and rocky - when not covered in ice and snow. Wake up!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-22 18:00|| 2005-12-22 18:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Liberal alert? Y'all feelin my green roots?

Don't get pissy with me Frank, cause I got my opinions and you got yours, but I ain't followin a talkin point that isn't realistic. I'm just a hick with some yearnin to believe in wide open spaces and an intrinsic value in what's wild and untouchable. Makes me all fuzzy inside, just like when I read "call of the wild" for the first time.

Larger habitat picture is what I'm talking about Frank. And I'm quite awake. What's your logic, because if its defense I believe it is misplaced.

I know there's a shitload of land sitting empty up there, but what's wrong with that, does every single square inch of earth have to be covered with mini malls to be considered progress. And yes, I know we're not talking about mini malls, but we are talking about a significant extraction effort and we all know that means significant infrastructure.

If it's 100%, 90%, or even, I'll go to 87% remediable then you might convince me, but tell me, is it? Or will significant habitat be permanently disrupted.

I ain't hunted caribou yet, and might not ever, hell I don't even know if you can, but that Wild and wooly country inspires me, and it just plain awesome, whether I can drive my truck to it or not.

I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, but my points are still made and quite valid, and whether or not I can get there to hunt and or fish it personally doen't influence my opinion on drilling for some very, very short term profit.

This is not a strategic issue, its a profit issue. And big oil has spent plenty of money framing it as a defense issue, which it ain't, for their profit.

I don't collect a check from Exxon though, many people do, but is this one drilling project going to make or break them or the American or Alaskan economy.

No. So, whatever. I see a value to Wilderness, and most who don't
feel as if it's a government lock out, and I understand that, but what the hell is wrong with a little balance in the world?

So whatever, you go your way, I'll go mine and I'll be happy.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 18:46|| 2005-12-22 18:46|| Front Page Top

#10 EHLTB - if you think every square inch of this country is covered with mini-malls - you must live in the BosWash corridor. Forget about Alaska for a moment - go to San Antonio. Get on I-10 and start driving west. Keep going till you hit Phoenix. THEN tell us how crowded this country is.

Posted by DMFD 2005-12-22 19:24|| 2005-12-22 19:24|| Front Page Top

#11 You guys are really missing the point. End the end...around 1/10 of 1% of ANWR would have had a wellhead on it. That would come to less than 2500 acres affected. You could wander the ANWR for years and not run into a wellhead.

It's all about the LLL and their whores in Congress. I will laugh my fanny off in the coming years when the pissheads on the East and West coasts who are keeping ANWR closed start paying $5 per gallon at the pump, and $1000 heating bills and electic bills.

And the 1-2 million+ additional barrels per day would represent over 20% of the domestic production. And the 15-20 billion barrels (minimum) of recoverable "people in the know" believe is there is more than has been recovered out of the North Slope...and those fields have been producing for over 2 decades.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-12-22 19:55|| 2005-12-22 19:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, so ANWR gonna solve our domestic energy needs is it? Ten to one says we drill ANWR and gas is still $5 a gallon in the coming years. Damn shame, but I'll take odds. Some gamblers out there no doubt.

The well head aint the issue as anyone familiar with migratory habits of big game animals will tell you, its the roads. Miles and miles and miles of new roads smack dab in the middle of God's country.Now let's talk derigibles for reachin the wellheads and you've got my vote.

I'll tell you from experience that big game don't take too kindly to roads in their way. It's not about gettin hit by the constant flow of trucks either, its about migratory routes and large herds. But I aint reviewed the plans and I aint an expert, so I'll shut the hell up till I know more. But before I do let me ask this. I've got a bit of experience with Wilderness, whataboutchall? The rest of y'all seen any elk or bear or anything remotely wild besides a whitetail or raccoon in your neck of the woods recently?

When was the last time any of y'all advocates of ANWR saw YOUR prey bugle out and heard a wolf call back. Maybe Paul up in Alaska, the rest, anybody?

God knows we need more opportunities to say we've been scared a grizzly was gonna get us, find any value in that? Well I do, and I sure as hell hope my grandkids get the chance to say the same thing.

But that's right, there ain't value in such things for city folk is there? I guess that's a good thing, keeps people out of my neck of the woods.

Oh, and DMFD, you got me all wrong, all wrong. Try a bit sparser, waaaaaay sparser. I despise cities, and I know Texas quite well, too many damn people, friendly though y'all may be. It's a bit too crowded for a country boy like me too, desert or no desert.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 20:46|| 2005-12-22 20:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Mark Steyn just called the Senate the House of Lords and said they were just as worthless on Hugh Hewitt. LOL

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2005-12-22 20:49|| 2005-12-22 20:49|| Front Page Top

#14 EP Of course not - ANWR drilling and extraction will not SOLVE our energy problem. But that is no excuse to do NOTHING.

Prudhoe Bay and the pipeline do not appear to have disrupted the ecology. The elk and caribou herds are larger thatn they heve ever been. What ids the real issue here? Are we even arguing about the same issue? I care about energy for the nation. I also care about wilderness, but not as much.

Would you propose a plan? (And not wind mills which are more destructive of wilderness than oil well are.)

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2005-12-22 20:57|| 2005-12-22 20:57|| Front Page Top

#15 EP, read what the former mayor of the only village in ANWR has to say about the proposed drilling. Or this Inupiat woman, who speaks for the native american organization there.

My people, the Inupiat, comprise the membership of ASRC. We hold title to 92,000 acres of privately owned land in the middle of the controversial Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR. We believe that responsible development of this area is our fundamental human right to economic self-determination...

Within those halls (of Congress) there is a debate on the most controversial element of the President?s national energy plan. This element is the responsible development of oil and gas on a tiny parcel of land within my region; it is the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Again, my people hold title to 92,000 acres of land within the Coastal Plain. We cannot develop our privately owned land unless Congress authorizes development within the Coastal Plain.

The uninformed will tell you that the Coastal Plain is untouched by man; that it is America?s Serengeti; the last great wilderness on earth; or that it cannot be developed responsibly. I am here to tell you the truth. In short, the Coastal Plain of ANWR is not untouched by man, nor is it the last great wilderness on earth. Finally, we believe that ANWR can be developed responsibly.

For thousands of years the Inupiat people have occupied the Arctic region of Alaska called the North Slope. This area is 89,000 square miles in size, equivalent to the size of the state of Minnesota. We have eight villages scattered throughout the North Slope. One of our villages is Kaktovik, the only village within the recognized boundaries of the entire 19.6 million acres of ANWR.

Kaktovik is situated within the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain. To put this in perspective for you, Kaktovik is the only village within the boundaries of an area the size of the state of South Carolina. The Inupiat people of Kaktovik own the surface rights to the 92,000 acres while ASRC owns the subsurface rights to that land.

Kaktovik residents support responsible ANWR development, as do 75% of all Alaskans and the Alaska Federation of Natives, an organization that represents all Alaska Natives.

To allege the Coastal Plain, or ANWR as a whole, is untouched by man is incorrect. Kaktovik has a population of roughly 260 people. Personally, I know the Coastal Plain is far from untouched because my great grandfather was commissioned by the U.S. Government in 1920, to conduct a census along 400 miles of coastal tundra between my hometown of Barrow and Demarcation Point which is on the U.S./Canadian border. When pressured to join the ministry he packed up his family and moved to a riverbank on the Coastal Plain just outside of Kaktovik.

This area is not the last great wilderness on earth. ANWR, especially the Coastal Plain, was utilized by my ancestors and it is currently inhabited by only my people; the U.S. Government even established DEW line radar sites within the Coastal Plain; and, in the southern portion of ANWR where development is strictly prohibited, nor desired, America?s wealthy and elite disrupt wildlife when they charter their helicopters in to hike the mountains or float the river. An average of 100 Americans a year visits the southern portion of ANWR that will never be open to development.

The decision of my people to support development was not made in haste, nor were we pressured by the industry. Our decision is rooted in our knowledge of the environment, stewardship of the animals and history with the Prudhoe Bay development.

When you oppose drilling in ANWR, you insist on your romanticized vision at the expense of their ability to develop their lands and improve the living standard of their people.

Posted by lotp 2005-12-22 21:07|| 2005-12-22 21:07|| Front Page Top

#16 The Senate is "Stuck-on-Stupid." Term limitations immediately for God's sake! What a bunch of losers. More drilling and exploration along with more refining capacity are very badly needed. Unfortunately, it don't bubble up from the ground anymore like it did no Jeb Clampets place. Unless we want to be tied to ME oil for the next 200 years, we'd better get our drilling hats on.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-22 21:24|| 2005-12-22 21:24|| Front Page Top

#17 The argument that MY romanticized version of Alaska is screwing natives in Alaska is a bit misplaced and irrelevant to whether or not our energy and defense needs will be met by drilling ANWR. But hey I don't live there, and I ain't met the natives you speak of.

Not to be an asshole, but when did this become an economic opportunity for Natives issue? 5, even 10 seconds after the reality sets in that ANWR will provide very little energy for a very short time and its not that big a step towards securing a future free of foreign oil dependence? Seems like an attempt at a defense, a grasping towards some, any reason to support the drilling.

I mean I care about people, all people in general, but I'm not here to worry nor talk about natives' plight in rural Alaska I'm here to talk security and the argument that drilling in ANWR will take us anywhere near close to a real american energy future is fallacy.

But to address the letter you posted from said natives, It seems a bit ridiculous to claim that putting in an extensive road network and oil drilling operation is equivalent to a traditional Native footpath or even an entire network of traditional native villages. Apples and oranges even. Wouldn't you agree?

Obviously these natives are, in your mind at least traditional stewards of the land, so wouldn't they, of course, be better stewards of the land than any white man following your logic? That's why their statements are so valid right?

However, and I'm not calling them liars, but that being said, I'd write whatever I had to write if my entire society was on the verge of extinction and one of the most economically depressed peoples in the world. Caribou bedamned, hard choices, but they have a bad situation to deal with. That being said, maybe they're right, maybe it won't be so bad, I don't know. I'm just suspicious.

I do value wilderness more than short term economic gain for a select few for anyone's future reference, but I live in a warm house, heated by natural gas no doubt provided by the same people or at least industry that wants to drill in ANWR. I'm not against industry by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just askin if this is really, really necessary.

So anything I say is just my opinion, as I said previously. And I'm just some ignorant hick with the smallest bit of experience in the wilderness and an admittedly deep suspicion of anyone promising a quick fix, especially billionaire executives toolin around in their leer jets living behind their palace walls.

But, I digress... does ANWR solve our energy needs? Does it come close? Well, does it?

And its not that I dont want to do something about our energy future, obviously I do. And I made some suggestions, including developing a real energy infrastructure right here under our noses. A huge economic opportunity for Americans that can compete with foreign oil, coal to gas. Fischer Trope my friends, and its not a pipe dream or a half ass temporary fix.

Coal to fuel offers a real solution, as I so ineloquently and incompletely mentioned above. Though I understand why noone would bother to read my postings, as I ain't nor do I wish to be in the mainstream.

There, that's my limit for spreading my bullshit for the day. Good night, and God bless.

Great discussion.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 22:44|| 2005-12-22 22:44|| Front Page Top

#18 We have coyotes and foxes in my little corner of the outer suburbs... fwiw. And my contribution toward the oil problem is to use an old-fashioned rotary lawnmower, and to buy a hybrid car (soon, I hope -- Mr. Wife tells me the minivan is developing transmission problems, which I believe is not a good thing). So my gas usage will soon go down by a third. I hope that helps, EP.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-22 23:46|| 2005-12-22 23:46|| Front Page Top

00:01 trailing wife
23:46 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:19 trailing wife
23:11 trailing wife
23:06 trailing wife
23:03 .com
22:57 Frank G
22:56 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Frank G
22:54 Shieldwolf
22:54 Frank G
22:51 Frank G
22:48 trailing wife
22:46 john
22:44 ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding
22:40 trailing wife
22:31 Chuck
22:28 Silentbrick
21:55 .com
21:44 Besoeker
21:35 JAB
21:35 Besoeker
21:28 Darrell