Loc: Syracuse, NY
Hadn't watched tv in over a week. And my first time back I see Pelosi on with Stephanopoulos. He must have asked her five times....why not allow a straight up or down vote? What a clueless woman. She continues to come back to the looney lib talking points of alternative energy and climate change. She represents the best the Dems have to offer. An absolutely pure example of the Peter Principle at work. If the GOP is smart, this issue will be the bludgeon to beat Obama. <br><br><br> GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?<br><br> NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: Except itís not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, ďThere is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer.Ē He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.<br><br> PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they're permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?<br><br> PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, itís not a solution.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if youíre right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?<br><br> PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you wonít allow a vote on --<br><br> PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.<br><br> PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is whatís going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It's not to use a tactic of one -- one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that's cheaper, better for the environment --<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that ďBills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.Ē If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?<br><br> PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It's simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.<br><br> PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them --<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?<br><br> PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: So youíre not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?<br><br> PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.<br><br> STEPHANOPOULOS: But thatís what I donít understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?<br><br> PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.<br><br><br>
i have a buddy in D.C. who is a lobbyist and close to folks in the know. he reported on drilling that . . .<br><br>"The fear of voting on drilling language has shut this place down. Expect no more vehicles to move before the election, especially appropriations bills. The Republicans are going to stick drilling language on anything that moves."<br><br>in other words, this congress is essentially over. he gives money to both parties, etc., but he says the republican leadership in house is just pathetic right now. it was weak under Hastert already and since Delay has left it's been non-existent. but to pretend like they expect much to happen in a very lame duck cycle is worthless. again, this congress had more votes than any other congress in the last 60 years even if they do nothing else.<br><br>it is interesting that when the dems did something similar when they were in the minority, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570_pf.html">the "liberal" media mocked their efforts</a>. they held a mock hearing on the Downing Street Memos . . . <br><br>"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.<br><br>They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I still wonder what happened to that first 100 hours straw promise that she made in 2005. It was a nice move the libs fell for, tugging at the emotions to get the votes.<p><hr></blockquote><p>FIrst off, your dates are all wrong. <br><br>Pelosi assumed leadership of the 110th Congress on January 4, 2007.<br><br><br><br>From Wiki: By January 18, 2007, 87 business hours after the swearing-in, the House of Representatives had passed every one of the plan's measures in the form that they had been submitted to Congress. These measures included all of those promised, with the exception of part of one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.<br><br>Plan components<br><br>The Plan as outlined by Speaker Pelosi is as follows:<br><br>Day One<br>"Break the link between lobbyists and legislation" with new House rules<br>Further enumerated to: "Curb lobbyists' influence by banning meals and gifts to lawmakers and requiring more disclosure and oversight."<br>Passed 280-152 as Title IV of House Resolution 6 on January 5, 2007 <br>Institute a "pay-as-you-go" policy to reduce the deficit<br>Passed 430-1 as Title II of House Resolution 6 on January 4, 2007 <br>Signed into law on December 19, 2007 by President Bush.<br><br>Day Two<br>Enact all recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission<br>Further enumerated to: "Implement unfulfilled recommendations of the September 11th Commission and beef up port security."<br>Passed 299-128 as H.R. 1 on January 9, 2007<br>Senate passed 60-38 as S. 4 on March 13, 2007. Differences are being resolved by a joint conference.<br>Signed into law on August 3, 2007 by President Bush.<br><br>Day Three<br>Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.<br>Passed 315-116 as H.R. 2 on January 10, 2007<br>Senate passed 94-3 on February 1, 2007. <br>Signed into law on May 25, 2007.<br><br>Day Four<br>Grant federal funding to a wide variety of stem cell research projects<br>Further enumerated to: "Pass another bill that allows expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, betting on better prospects for an override if the president vetoes it again."<br>Passed 253-174 as H.R. 3 on January 11, 2007<br>Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, securing lower drug prices for Medicare patients.<br>Further enumerated to: "Reduce prescription-drug prices for seniors by requiring Medicare to negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies."<br>Passed 255-170 as H.R. 4 on January 12, 2007<br><br>Day Five<br>Cut interest rates on student loans in half<br>Passed 356-71 as H.R. 5 on January 17, 2007<br><br>Day Six<br>End large tax subsidies for large oil companies, for the reasons outlined above and also to help foster energy independence<br>Passed 264-163 as H.R. 6 on January 18, 2007<br>Senate passed 65-27 on June 21, 2007.<br><br><br>All links to the legislation is found on the Wiki page.<br><br><br><br>
Were soaring Congressional job approval ratings part of the plan? <br><br>By the way, when Republicans controlled Congress, Congressional job approval ratings were almost always a part of the nightly news ... on all three networks. Now, you almost never hear about it. <br><br>For example back when Republicans controlled Congress, and (for example) Democrats were pushing for off shore drilling, and Denny Hastert blocked the measure (which was sure to easily pass with bi-partisan support), the big three newscasts would lead off howling about the Hastert's obstruction in the face of what Congress and most American's want. Then they would tie it all together with endless "pain at the pump" stories tagged with the horrible Congressional job approval ratings. And they would do all of this especially during an election year. <br><br>But .. because Dems are running the show .. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .. barely a word. And NOTHING about Pelosi's low Congressional job approval ratings. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.