The Democrats, for their part, have shown themselves unwilling to deal with the issue, at least before Election Day. They have every incentive, the more pain people feel at the pump, the more they blame the party that controls the White House. It's a transparent hope that they drag their feet until November and then ride in to the rescue, showing the Democrats as the "energy" party. It isn't the first time someone played politics with important legislation; it won't be the last.
However, instead of carrying that message or showing that even Barack Obama is starting to support a new energy policy, childish games ensue. What happened to the party of ideas?
Instead of an intellectual advancement of a sound energy policy, the oxygen is sucked up by infantilism. The voters are fed up by politicians who are not advancing their values and they want solutions. They are so fed up, many have whole-heartedly embraced a mirage of hope and change. It should tell Republicans something that a strong chunk of the electorate has placed their hopes in cleaning up Washington on a … Chicago machine Democrat.
While it may be giddily amusing to engage in a general ruckus on the House floor, nothing is well-served. With the Republicans going into an election cycle where the conventional wisdom declares it to be a blood-bath-in-advance for them, you'd think they wouldn't give voters yet another reason to throw them out of office. Maybe they've already resigned themselves to defeat. I'd rather they be the party of ideas and leadership and not "a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more." At least those engaging in the antics are the minority of Republicans.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
This GOP stunt is nothing but political grandstanding. When they had the White and control of congress a few years back why didn't they see fit to take any action to address our dependency on foreign oil or make long term plans to contain costs.
The Democrats are know better. They oppose anything that isn't solar or wind. Nazi Pelosi actually said that it's her duty to save the planet during and interview with George Stephanopoulos this past weekend. Her idea of saving the planet is the American public living in huts while she and her dumbass cronies on capital hill take vacations at their third homes in the middle of august. I'd like to smack the fucking botox right out of her plastic face.
It's all the same. Neither side wants the other side to be seen by the public as having had any part, regardless how small, in actually doing something positive to make progress in our energy dilemma. One side makes you see RED while the other side makes you feel BLUE.
2 - Baronius
"Drill Now" is a great idea. But what about "drill three years ago", so that we don't end up with this current tight fuel market? See the link for the Senate votes on ANWR drilling in 2005. (I couldn't find the House side.) No Senator who opposed drilling in ANWR in 2005 should be considered presidential material.
3 - bliffle
No congressman who supports OCS drilling should be considered for office. It's BAD BUSINESS for the USA to sign new contracts with oil companies with the current unfavorable terms due to the "oversight" which has been pointed out by the GAO.
There is NO HURRY to drill OCS because it will take 7-15 years for that oil to reach market.
2/3 of the OCS oil will go to foreign countries, anyhow. Why bother? We lose.
55% of the profits from drilling OCS will go to foreign oil companies. What's the big hurry? What do we owe them?
Don't rush in a panic to make a longterm decision that will be unfavorable to us. Even if drilling OCS were a good thing it would be years before we see any benefit.
4 - Dave Nalle
So renegotiate the contracts. It's not rocket science. This is the time to do it and to pass new energy legislation and open up drilling.
I'm thinking it's time for state legislatures to start impeaching congressmen.
Dave
5 - bliffle
Bambi sez: "Offshore and ANWR drilling certainly is part of that, as are other programs, such as expanded nuclear and wind power."
None of those are "..certainly (is) part of that..." at all, since the efficacy of OCS and ANWR drilling has not been shown.
As a matter of fact, there are other possible components of an energy program that you don't mention at all, like solar, geothermal and conservation.
There's no harm in holding off on OCS/ANWR because their payoffs are so far in the future. Haste does not benefit the USA, just the oil companies who get leases at todays discount prices and can hold them in reserve as long as they please.
Do we have to get after our state legislators to impeach the congressmen who have surrendered such valuable lease terms to the oil companies? And who have stymied support of wind, solar and geothermal at every opportunity?