While we have said little about Ted Stevens on this blog, with Bruce offering one mocking post, noting the number of projects named for Alaska’s senior senator he discovered when he visited Anchorage, we have not hesitated to criticize members of our party for continuing to push pork-barrel projects. Â I took on then-Senator Trent Lett on his penchant for pork here and addressed the problem of Jerry Lewis, then-Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in this post.
And Stevens, famous for seeking an earmark for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” has long been the king of Pork.
The pork-barreling ways of such Republican leaders are one reason Lewis and many other House (& Senate) Republicans are now former committee chairmen. Â Had Republicans stayed true to our party’s fiscal principles and not adopted the spendthrift ways of such legislators as Stevens, Lewis and Lott, the GOP might still have its congressional majorities.
Thus, I’m not shedding a tear for the Alaska Senator’s latest woes. Â He seems to think his forty year-Senate exempts him from the normal Senate disclosure rules. Â Maybe it’s that he’s never “had a close election race since being appointed to the Senate in 1968.”
If he were a decent man, he would say that, after his long career, he wants to leave politics with his good name intact.  Thus, he will withdraw from the current Senate campaign in order to focus all his efforts on defeating the charges against him. Â
Personally, I think he should have retired long ago. Â And Glenn Reynolds has been publicly calling for his retirement for at least a year.
Ted Stevens really represents one of the greatest problems of the GOP in recent years. Â Many of our leading politicians subscribe only to the principles of power and pork and not the conservative ideas which have proven successful for Republican candidates in any number of elections over the years. Â No wonder that while the Democrats currently enjoy an edge in party identification, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal.
This “ideology gap” could help he GOP if our elected officials stayed true to their principles. Â But, alas, all too often, we’re saddled with unprincipled politicians like Ted Stevens.
Screw the Senate – the HOUSE GOP is launching a legislative counterattack on San Fran Nan for adjourning the House for the August recess without a vote on the current energy crisis. They are now “Twitter-casting” and using blogs to urge every GOP representative still in DC to head to the House chamber for the people’s business.
Alas – CSPAN will not cover this parliamentary procedure. But you can ask them to do so here.
I will echo what Rep. McCotter (R-Mich.) said: “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”
Right on!
Regards,
Peter H.
San Fran Nan ordered security to clear out the press so no one could cover the Republicans demanding the House stay in session to vote on off-shore drilling. Then, she ordered the cameras turned off and the lights turned out so C-SPAN couldn’t cover Republican Debate on energy policy.
Tell me again how Bush is running a police state? Tell me again how Bush is subverting Democracy?
Also, Ted Stevens should be the poster child for Term Limits. I hope the good people of Alaska ditch him, even if it means electing a Democrat. However, if Stevens wants to save his ass, switching parties would be a smart move. Corruption isn’t a big deal when a Democrat does it, right Harry Reid? Right William Jefferson? Right, Mel Reynolds? Right Bill “Pardons for Sale” Clinton? Right, Barack “Rezko” Obama?
Are you all forgetting Senator Byrd? He is the undisputed king of pork and is the true poster child for term limits. Stevens is no lily white virgin, by Byrd is far and away a worse example.
#2 – V, I hope that Bush uses his powers as enumerated in Article II and calls an EMERGENCY session of Congress to deal with the oil crisis.
But if he doesn’t, here’s hoping that he puts in some Federal & Circuit Court judges in as recess appointments.
Regards,
Peter H.
At the very least, I would get rid of all seniority status. In other words, I person in the Senate (or H of R) for one month should have just as much power as a senator for 40 years. Then you can have blowhards like Byrd remain in the Senate for 1000 years and it wouldn’t matter that much. It would also reduce the privileged pork that Stevens and Byrd were able to accumulate unfairly for their states.
V, I hope that Bush uses his powers as enumerated in Article II and calls an EMERGENCY session of Congress to deal with the oil crisis.
Frankly, I don’t now how helpful oil drilling would be, but it should at least go up for a vote. The Republicans should then petition to call an emergency session there, and keep them there until there is a vote. I don’t think it will happen, because they are probably afraid the favor will be returned in the future. Yeah, it shouldn’t matter, but apparently, in Washington, playing games is more important than substance.
I agree with Rush. If Stevens would switch parties, all of it would go away. The liberals and the media would circle the wagons and protect him. Pinko, Kevin and Dave could regail us for days on how it was all Bush’s fault etc.
It would immediately change the psychology of the markets, bringing oil down another $20/barrel.
It’s not easy to make oil show up in the right place at the right time and the current price reflects a lot of future planning, i.e., what will the demand and the available supply a year from now? such that we could guarantee a delivery of XXX amount then, at the East Timbuktu power station? CA offshore oil could be brought on in as little as a year. Some other oil fields might take 3 to 5 years. Knowing it was all coming, starting with CA offshore in a year, would strongly affect current markets.
Think of it this way… pretend that as , I’ll make soemthuign up.. the ice on Greenland melted, that it was discovered the entire northern half of Greenland was made of solid gold.
What would that do to the price of gold on the commodity markets.. just knowing that that much new gold has been discovered even though none of it was mined yet?
Let’s see… Drilling would create thousands of well-paid jobs in the private sector at no cost to government. Replacing just a tenth of the oil we currently import with domestic supplies would reduce our trade deficit by billions of dollars, which would no longer be going overseas to support terror regimes.
In your world, are those things not very helpful?
#2 – V, it appears as though CSPAN is “controlled” by the Office of the Speaker of the House – it tells CSPAN when and IF (my highlight) they can broadcast.
Excuse me, what is this about a free media? Hello? Is this thing on? But I digress.
Fox News was able to get both radio mikes and TV cameras on the House floor, in an unprecedented attack on CSPAN’s monopoly of Congressional broadcasting. You can see the whole report here.
Of course, none of the alphabet nets or CNN, PMSNBC or their ilk even addressed the GOP House Party. Only Fox News and (briefly) the Wall Street Journal.
Bias? What liberal media bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
That Fox Blog entry is about the only thing on their whole web stie about it.
And there’s no video of the video that blog entry is supposed to be heralding as some sort of achievement.
#3 You are right on the money. We Republicans /conservatives want our crooks thrown out. To heck with the Dems if they want whore house deans, murderers, labor law violators, real estate crooks , rapists, molesters etc etc to remain in their party just for the sake of holding on to power.
Jerry Lewis is the real problem. That man has to GO!
Vince, ILC, V the K, I’m not against drilling at all. But the estimates I’ve heard is that the oil that can be obtained from such drilling amounts to the amount consumed in two years. Of course, this could be an underestimate, which would be great.
Creation of jobs would also be great, but obviously such a plan would not be advocated if the drilling produced no oil. So the question is for the amount of oil that can be obtained is it worth it? It seems like it would be, but it appears to me that this is only a temporary measure. If it’s used as such while developing useful alternative resources and technology, while reducing our dependence on oil in the meantime, then I’m all for it. On the other hand, if it stifles development, then we’re no better than we were before, or perhaps worse. We’ll still have to deal with skyrocketing prices, and we’ll still be handing over money to terrorist harboring/supporting nations.
Pat , frankly , I dont give a shit.
Let the oil companies drill. Period.
Gee.. how come no one analyizes the textile industry and offer their great policy ideas to secure the future for our jockstraps and socks.
Pat , frankly , I dont give a shit.
Let the oil companies drill. Period.
Okay.
Gee.. how come no one analyizes the textile industry and offer their great policy ideas to secure the future for our jockstraps and socks.
I don’t know, Vince. If I regarded that as important, I’d probably analyze it, but I don’t, so I won’t. I’m assuming the Republicans analyzed ocean drilling and thought it was an excellent idea.
Someone needs to explain to me how planes and ships are going to run on solar and wind energy. And even if a new energy source is magically invented in the next 5 years, what are Americans suppose to do with the milllions of gasoline powered automobiles on our highways? Sell em for $100 a piece to third world countries?
Someone needs to explain to me how planes and ships are going to run on solar and wind energy. And even if a new energy source is magically invented in the next 5 years, what are Americans suppose to do with the milllions of gasoline powered automobiles on our highways? Sell em for $100 a piece to third world countries?
Gene, I have no idea if we can find alternative energy sources to operate planes and ships. I imagine that some things will always need some oil-derived fuel. We still produce a significant portion of the oil that we use. It would be great if that’s all we need and not have to import oil. If offshore drilling helps in that regard, I’m all for it.
If a new energy source is developed for cars that is feasible, then instead of dumping or selling all these gasoline powered cars, we’d probably go through a transition period like we did when we switched to unleaded fuel.
Pat, here a a few numbers for you to chew on (courtesy of the US government):
1. Saudi Arabia is sending us 1.579 million barrels per day.
2. Venezuela – 1.03 million bpd.
3. Algeria 492 thousand bpd.
4. Iraq 452 thousand bpd (so much for the “war for oil” nonsense spouted by libtards).
and
5. Kuwait 179 thousand bpd (see #4 above).
We need to drill now, even if the results won’t be felt for a while. Why?
1. Increased jobs
2. Increased demand
3. OPEC prices will drop further once we even begin to take action (seen the price of a barrel today? It’s $118 and FALLING.)
The snObama has now flip-flopped and introduced a so-called “10-Year Plan” (shades of the former USSR) to rid us of foreign oil dependence.
Apparently he can’t do math either.
His plan leaves untouched our daily doses from Canada (1,876 tbd) Mexico (1,467) Nigeria (1,048) and Angola (581). Therfore, his new sources still have to come up with the energy equivalent of 3.752 million barrels of oil a day.
That’s a big number. Obama opposes almost all new drilling, so it is fair to assume that he means to find this energy somewhere else, and for only $15 billion dollars a year.
This plan is nothing but sheer fantasy. Obama knows it and any serious observer knows it, but Obama prattles on unchallenged by MSM, but not by voters.
And certainly not by his own blinded followers, like some of the posters on this board.
The answer? Drill. Now. Often.
Regards,
Peter H.