House And Senate Report

Just a few things I've seen around.

• NC-Sen: Elizabeth Dole is the subject of the worst profile I've seen of a candidate in a while. It starts with her saying that she's been in her home state a lot lately. Um, it's kind of your job to be connected with your constituents all the time. Then there's this amazing statement:

Dole said she also supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, where drilling would have a small footprint that wouldn’t harm much wildlife.

“Even the caribou like to snuggle up to the pipeline,” she said.

This flavor of crazy leaped from right-wing Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota over to Dole. The idea that Liddy Dole can read the minds of caribou - and that PLAYS INTO HER POLICY THINKING - is just incredible. If I'm Kay Hagan I play that for the next 11 weeks.

• AK-Sen: Ted Stevens is going to be standing trial in Washington, losing his battle for a change of venue in his corruption case to Alaska, where he has been providing everyone with their own personal bridge for 40 years. Sound judicial decision. So he'll be spending September and October in DC while fighting for his political life back at home, returning on weekends to campaign after a 8-hour flight. And he's in his 80s. Those will be some energetic rallies.

• CO-Sen: VoteVets has gone up with a very good ad basically calling Bob Schaffer a war profiteer for negotiating oil contracts in Kurdistan in the middle of the Iraq war. It's gotten some local coverage, where you can see Schaffer's campaign manager blowing a gasket.

Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, demanded the group apologize to the candidate.

"That is the most reprehensible and disgusting attack that could be leveled," Wadhams said, adding that three of Schaffer's five children are officers in training in college and will be deployed within a few years [...]

Wadhams challenged VoteVets.org to release its list of donors to prove it is not funded by "labor unions and leftist organizations."

Touchy, touchy!

• MS-Sen: This race between Roger Wicker and Ronnie Musgrove is far closer than you would expect for a race in Mississippi. So it's time for the Bush Administration to step in and sabotage the election.

When the Democrats and their attorneys began claiming last year that the Bush administration was using its prosecutorial might to target opposition candidates and their major financial supporters, I greeted the allegation with a skeptical eye.

I’m not so sure anymore.

This past week’s developments in the four-year-old investigation into the failed Mississippi Beef Processors plant seem timed to help derail Democrat Ronnie Musgrove’s bid to snatch one of the state’s two U.S. Senate seats from Republican hands.

Read the whole thing.

• FL-13: CREW has filed an FEC complaint against Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan, and there are a couple interesting signatories to the complaint - Buchanan's own employees.

Today, CREW and Florida citizens Carlo Bell and D.J. Padilla (both of whom worked for Buchanan's car dealerships) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) against Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) alleging serious violations of campaign finance law. The complaint and affidavits of Bell and Padilla can be found here.

Rep. Buchanan owns several car dealerships in Florida. In September 2005, dealership employees were pressured into contributing to Rep. Buchanan’s congressional campaign and some were reimbursed for making contributions. Former employee Carlo Bell was called into a manager’s office and told that if he was part of the “team” he would make a contribution. Fearing for his job, Bell agreed to make the donation and was handed $1,000 in cash. Bell also saw two other employees, Jack Prater and Jason Martin take cash in return for promising to write checks and FEC reports confirm that both men made $1,000 contributions to the Buchanan campaign.

• MN-03: It's Blog Day for Ashwin Madia, a former Marine corpsman and solid progressive. He also ended up writing a great piece about Sen. Lieberman and Iraq today.

Today, the Republican Party announced that the loudest defender of status quo policies on Iraq, Senator Joe Lieberman, will be a prominent speaker at the Republican National Convention in my home state of Minnesota. Senator Lieberman and I do have one thing in common. We’ve both changed political parties. I left the Republican Party in 2002 after it replaced “balance our budget” with “borrow and spend” and after we started a war without a plan for success; a war we did not need.

With all respect to Senator Lieberman, talking tough about Iraq is not brave. Bravery is not demonstrated through words but instead through action.

Republicans Vote Against Lowering Gas Prices

Even though I don't think it's the entire story, there's certainly SOME speculation in the oil futures market that is driving up the price. Ian Welsh has a pretty good explanation of this. And so to see the Senate block consideration on a bill that would rein in speculation in the market, a few days after voting 94-0 to move it forward, is just embarrassing, and really shows where the loyalties of the Republicans lie - with the speculators and with the oil companies that benefit from the speculation.

The DSCC puts it all together in a press release:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators – institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil – now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

And the only action the Republicans want to take to relieve the burden of high gas prices is more drilling and spilling, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so, that the wildlife "wouldn't care" about giant oil rigs going up in their backyard (in that case, let's put one behind John Boehner's house). Of course, that drilling and spilling will only advantage- you guessed it, giant oil companies.

It's all so transparent...

Meet Mark Begich, Alaska's Next Senator

This is really good to see.

Alaska’s U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Ted Stevens and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has been a toss-up for several months now, but the Democratic challenger is now ahead 50% to 41%. When “leaners” are included, Begich leads 52% to 44%.

Begich began running his first television ads of the campaign on July 8 and the survey was conducted nine days later.

I've blogged about those ads previously, but this week I got to know Mark Begich as a person. He held an informal event with a bunch of us bloggers on Thursday at Netroots Nation, and because of the whirlwind of events I haven't gotten around to it until today. Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, which has 43% of the population of the state (and 70% of the media market), got into the campaign late for very calculated reasons. First of all, media is cheap, and an ad buy like he's started can have an immediate impact. Begich outraised Series of Toobz Ted Stevens in the second quarter, so he will have the needed resources. He had the same strategy in 2003, when he beat the sitting incumbent mayor of Anchorage in a close vote, and then went on to manage the city out of fiscal crisis and got them on better footing. The key, to him, is to be direct - to shoot straight with people and tell them what you believe. He calls in to any conservative talk show and even engages with random commenters on the Anchorage Daily News blog - so much so that his campaign staff has had to rein him in a bit!

Alaska is really a different kind of state, one that relies on help from the federal government because of its proximity and relies on the oil and gas industry for its wealth. Ted Stevens has cynically used this to steer contracts to his political friends and allies, but as Begich said "his clout is no longer working for Alaskan families," and there's a disconnect between the state's needs and the rhetoric in Washington. The one question I got to ask him was about oil exploration, because it's interesting that his first ad, in Alaska, was about his commitment to wind energy. "I couldn't have run that ad a couple years ago," he said, "but things are changing. Alaska is starting to view itself as an energy state, not an oil and gas state. He gave the example of salmon fishers off the coast (about 50% of our salmon come from this area) not being able to ice down their catches because it's now too expensive to pay for the energy to generate the ice. So their solution was an ice barge for all the ships and boats, powered by tidal energy. Alaskans are feeling these problems every day, and it's a common thread that unites them. And it can be the spur to real innovations and diversification of our energy future. That comes with a comprehensive energy policy, and while it's clear that Begich would vote for drilling in ANWR - although he said that a lot of the oil could be sucked up by nearby existing fields if they bent their pipes a little bit - he would use it as part of a comprehensive energy policy, which we currently don't have.

There are other issues in the campaign as well, including the SCOTUS (the reduction of the fine necessary for Exxon to pay in the Valdez aftermath weighs big with voters) and veteran's issues (11% of the state are vets, and yet there's NO VA HOSPITAL up there). The good numbers notwithstanding, this race isn't over - Begich described a 3-4 point "rubber band effect" where voters often come back to the GOP in the last week, and the local press is notoriously soft on the legendary Stevens. But there's a real opportunity here to send a pragmatic progressive to Washington who has the competence, the ability and the principles to lead Alaska in the Senate. I was pretty impressed.

Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis and CAF also interviewed Begich and has the video to prove it. That's below. See in particular his thoughts on protecting our fundamental constitutional rights from the politics of fear, and his beliefs about the netroots.

WSJ Misleading About Democratic Plans On Energy

When I read this Wall Street Journal article about the Democrats possibly caving on oil exploration, my immediate thought was "I give up!" But there appears to be much ado about nothing here, and when you consider the source of Murdoch's new toy, you have to be skeptical.

Much of the headline is made out of this quote by Dick Durbin:

"Sen. Durbin said any compromise on drilling, however, would be contingent at a minimum on a requirement that oil and gas companies sitting on existing acreage either produce oil on those areas within a specified period or return the leases to the government."

This is pretty much what the Democrats have been saying on this issue all along. It's perfectly consistent with the "Use It Or Lose It" plan, and the Obama campaign's dismissal of this as another stunt by a party addicted to oil. Nancy Pelosi went even further in a news conference today.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate.
“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

There may be some Bush Dogs with loose lips talking to the WSJ, with the media all too happy to sow discord, but from the standpoint of the leadership, I don't think they're backing off of their pledge... for now.

John McCain's California Adventure

Well, John W. McCain had a great couple of days in the Golden State. First he went to Santa Barbara, site of a huge 1969 oil spill, to promote his plan to cancel the moratorium on offshore drilling, and he ran into an expert who rebutted his entire premise.

Feeney also took issue with McCain's controversial proposal to lift the moratorium on offshore oil exploration: "It makes me nervous to think about those who are proposing to drain America's offshore oil and gas reserves as quickly as possible in the hopes of driving down the price of gasoline, because I think when you look at the good sources of information, were we to open up the California coast or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, it would be 12, 15, maybe 20 years before those resources came online and got to full productions."

Adding that some research shows that drilling in ANWR would only "reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 70% to 67%," Feeney added, "I'm not sure most Americans would think that's really worth the price of admission."

Then, in Fresno, he admitted that there would be no material benefit to offshore exploration:

That Charlie Black comment wasn’t McCain’s only off-message moment yesterday. At a town hall in Fresno, CA, McCain admitted that the offshore drilling proposal he unveiled last week would probably have mostly “psychological” benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy notes. “Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Uh oh.

Later, at a fundraiser, an attendee very nicely called him an idiot:

"We're really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we're goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore,” the attendee said. “So we ask you to look out there to the south and the southeast and remember the greatest environmental catastrophe that's hit this state and then balance that with the notion of winning California."

And McCain topped it off by telling Fresno that we went to war for oil.

I also want to make sure that we will take concrete steps towards eliminating our dependence on foreign oil.

And I am confident that uh, the, the conflicts that we are in in both Iraq and Afghanistan have also a bearing on that.

(Incidentally, is there anyone in America who doesn't know this? We've been going to war for oil since oil started powering cars. Before that the world used a lot of whale oil, and if we still did America would be at war with Sea World.)

Thanks for coming, Big John! Please stop by again sometime and further ruin your candidacy!

I Stand Corrected - As Does McCain

I thought that John McCain's "X Prize" for a superior car battery was a decent enough idea, but upon closer inspection it's actually quite silly:

I should be able to avoid saying anything as dumb as McCain's battery-prize proposal. Not that I don't like batteries, mind you! But if someone were to invent a better one they'd already be poised to make a huge amount of money through its commercialization. Offering prizes for innovation isn't always a terrible idea — for pharmaceuticals with a limited market of potential users it can make sense due to the huge costs associated with developing and testing a new drug. But everyone in the developed world needs better energy storage technology, and they need it right now. And while it's important to make sure your new batteries are safe and robust (e.g. they don't explode too much), that's still much easier and cheaper to do than it is to conduct a set of double-blind human trials. So sweetening the pot is unnecessary. Anyone who has a good idea about how to build a better battery is already working on the problem.

It also is a pretty small prize considering the billions to be made off the idea, and as I did say, putting it toward building a better BATTERY, which keeps us in a car culture and on the energy grid (currently one that pollutes), is counter-productive. Of course, most of McCain's ideas are counter-productive, and interestingly enough, he'll admit that to you.

At a town hall in Fresno, CA, McCain admitted that the offshore drilling proposal he unveiled last week would probably have mostly “psychological” benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy notes. “Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Uh oh.

I don't think anyone struggling to fill their gas tank is interested in a psychological benefit. But McCain knows he can't peddle this nonsense. The handpicked panelists for his own rallies are scoffing at the offshore drilling idea.

Feeney also took issue with McCain's controversial proposal to lift the moratorium on offshore oil exploration: "It makes me nervous to think about those who are proposing to drain America's offshore oil and gas reserves as quickly as possible in the hopes of driving down the price of gasoline, because I think when you look at the good sources of information, were we to open up the California coast or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, it would be 12, 15, maybe 20 years before those resources came online and got to full productions."

Adding that some research shows that drilling in ANWR would only "reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 70% to 67%," Feeney added, "I'm not sure most Americans would think that's really worth the price of admission."

On the other hand, McCain is aware of all Internet traditions, so that's... something.

You Know The Drill

So John McCain and George Bush think they've found the mother lode, and have decided that they're going to carry the policy of lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on America's coasts all the way to another four years in the White House. They've got the whole conservative movement on their side with this coordinated effort, too. Newt Gingrich is babbling about a cyber-petition (his words, I stopped using "cyber" shortly after I read my last William Gibson novel in 6th grade) with 750,000 signers, some of them possibly real, calling on America to "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." The wingnut minions are inundating members of Congress with phone calls (that means a couple hundred). And I wish I could have seen the look on poor Charlie Crist's face when he had to grudgingly go along with this charade, as the Governor of Florida, and put his political career at risk:

Crist, last week:

Q: Gov. are you dropping your opposition to drilling for oil off of Florida’s coast?
CRIST: I am not. … No. 1, I don’t like it.

Crist today:

“What we ought to be willing to do is study it,” he said. “Reaching a conclusion about what is right or not right at this juncture is hard to do.” [...]

Florida politicians of both parties “have worked to keep the drilling ban in force along Florida shores for more than 25 years,” the Miami Herald observed today. Many fear “it would harm the state’s beaches that are so vital to its tourism.” Former Governor Jeb Bush (R) has also pushed hard for the ban on drilling.

MSNBC noted today, “No Republicans in Florida have gotten elected statewide without endorsing the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling…if Crist tries to rationalize the McCain decision then we’ll really find out just how much he wants on the ticket.”

GOP Sellout Alert! (and like McCain needs more help losing Florida, right?)

Now, I think the best way to understand what the right is actually proposing here is best typified by this chart:



With the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, you're talking about dropping the price of a barrel of oil between $0.50 and $2 over a 30-year time horizon when the price has gone up $100 since the beginning of the Bush Presidency. It's the same for drilling offshore. As Bill Scher put it,

UPDATE: Just to put a fine point on it, lowering the price of crude oil per barrel by $1 is roughly equal to a reduction in price at the pump of 2.5 cents per gallon. So lifting all of the above moratoriums, lowering the price of crude by $2.25 per barrel, would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents by 2025.

Meaningless, after prices have skyrocketed more than $3 a gallon between Dec. 2001 and today.

Even John McCain's top campaign adviser has admitted that drilling would have no immediate effect on higher gas prices.

But even if it did, it would be a catastrophic mistake. Debbie Cook, who is the Mayor of Huntington Beach, sits on the board of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (APSO), and who is running for Congress this year against our favorite Taliban lover Dana Rohrabacher, characterizes this quest for drilling as merely an effort to "divert our attention away from the real problem" of flattening world oil production, peak production being reached in 50 countries, and a dissipation of fossil fuel resources worldwide. From her statement:

George Bush and Dana Rohrabacher’s failure to understand the fundamental economics and geology of oil and gas production is matched only by their failures as leaders.

The true solution to our energy problems starts with conservation efforts, and investment in alternative and sustainable energy sources, which will create new American industries and jobs and jumpstart the sluggish economy.

But you have to look a little but further to get to the truth here. If two oilmen in the White House and a majority in the Congress, as Bush and Cheney had for 6 years, wasn't enough to get the job done of drilling in ANWR, do you really think they and their oil company buddies want to? The truth is hinted at in Harry Reid's response.

The facts are clear: Oil companies have already had ample opportunity to increase supply, but they have sat on their hands. They aren’t even using more than half of the public lands they already have leased for drilling. And despite the huge tax breaks President Bush and Republican Congresses have given oil and gas companies to invest in refineries, domestic production has actually dropped.

Private corporations have potentially billions of barrels of oil sitting in capped wells and untapped leased fields, some of which have been lying fallow for as much as thirty years. They won't open them because they are more profitable as untapped reserves, which inflates the stock price and goes directly into the execs' wallets. Bush and McCain say they want more drilling, but the oil companies don't. They want more untapped reserves so they can pump up their balance sheets.

This is all a game. Bush and McCain want to funnel oil services contracts to corporate boardrooms, not oil to consumers. They either have some polling about how fear of higher gas prices will allow them to gain some populist support for these measures, or they're just following the Republican playbook since the energy crisis of the late 1970s. Whatever it is, they certainly aren't interested in delivering more oil.

UPDATE: Environmentalist at Kos reaches the same conclusion.

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%. And did you see your gasoline costs drop? How about your electricity costs? Propane? natural gas? Uh...no. There is absolutely no correlation between the industrialization of public lands and the price of fossil fuels [...]

What's going on here is yet another cynical attempt by the GOP and the oil and gas robber barons to increase and assure huge industry profits at the expense of the American people. These companies don’t want to drill these areas. They want to hold them as assests to limit the amount of oil and gas on the market so that prices rise still further - and they make more money. They want to hold on to these areas so that they can drill them ten or fifteen years from now and make an even bigger fortune.

Nobody Likes A Whiner

You know you're trying to bluff with a really bad hand when the AP opens its story with this lede:

President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Even I'm embarrassed for Bush trying to pull this switcheroo. But he didn't stop with gas prices, he blamed Congress for the farm bill, stopping nuclear power plants, foreclosures, the economy, and I think Miley Cyrus' photo spread. If Truman said "The buck stops here," then Bush's mantra must be "Who wants this buck?"

It goes without saying that his remedies for the nation's domestic ills are ill-chosen and ridiculous, but the AP went ahead and nicely summarized them.

Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices [...]

Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, [Bush] said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.

FACT: Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.

On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use [...] When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.

And it just got worse from there. I hate to even give these little temper tantrum press conferences even the most minor notice, since they all come down to a series of wild charges with no basis in fact, and the country has tuned this guy out already and can't wait for him to leave, anyway. But the thing is that the Republican Party is desperate to get out from under the impression that they broke the economy, and are starting to raise this whole "Democrats in Congress did it" approach, so it's important to get out in front of the spin.

Now on the farm bill, I don't totally disagree with the President in theory about subsidies, and Congress is responding, though I can't help but think that Bush doesn't really want to stop payments to wealthy farmers so much as to transfer them to agribusiness.