Posted on 05/03/2008 10:31:21 AM PDT by The_Republican
After U.S. gasoline prices surged to a record high this week, President Bush strode into the Rose Garden to unveil his plans for coping with skyrocketing energy costs: drill for oil in Alaska, add U.S. refineries and build more nuclear plants.
Even the White House conceded that the ideas did not have a chance. Democrats howled, Republicans shrugged and Washington moved on.
Ignoring the conventions of a lame-duck presidency, Bush is forging ahead with proposals that appear to have little chance of passage during his last nine months, relying on sharp rhetoric and strong-arm tactics in an attempt to influence the Democratic Congress. His plan for housing reform has languished since August, his push for a free trade pact with Colombia has been crushed, his climate-warming initiative has been largely ignored and he has yet to persuade the House to pass terrorist-surveillance legislation he deems vital to protecting the country.
Presidential aides characterize Bush as intent on pursuing matters of principle, regardless of the polls. Democrats accuse him of needless stubbornness at the expense of improving a battered economy and addressing other problems.
"I believe they're letting the American people down," Bush said of Congress during his Tuesday news conference in the Rose Garden. He added a moment later: "I'm perplexed, I guess is the best way to describe it, about why there's no action -- inactivity on big issues."
Any president faces a challenge during the last year in office, in part because so much attention shifts to the succession contest. For example, the recent debate over waiving the federal gas tax has focused on what the would-be presidents would do, rather than on the policies of the man currently in the White House.
Bush faces particularly daunting obstacles.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In the word's of Penguins announcer Mike Lange; W should "beat them like a rented mule".
“After U.S. gasoline prices surged to a record high this week, President Bush strode into the Rose Garden to unveil his plans for coping with skyrocketing energy costs: drill for oil in Alaska, add U.S. refineries and build more nuclear plants.”
Sounds like a plan. This can be a winning issue if McCainiac gets a new brain.
What do the Dems have? Schumer the tumor wants an investigation into price fixing. pfft...
We could be energy independent in 5-7 years if we had the will. Much better off within 2-3 years of starting such a national program...meaning the nation as a whole was behind it.
At this point, we need a Reagan with the will and the ability to take the energy message to the American people, on national TV, and give the liberal politicians the fear of their political lives.
Thank goodness he’s pushing for something sensible for a change.
Too bad the dems won’t let it happen.
It’s like a wife beater suddenly “changing” and bringing home flowers.
Too little.
Too late.
Why didn’t you push for drilling six years ago, President Bush? Where were you then?
National Energy Policy May 2001 http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/2001/Forward.pdf Congress has designated about 610 million acres off limits to leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which contains large amounts of recoverable oil and gas resources. These Congressional moratoria have been expanded by Presidential action through 2012, effectively confining the federal OCS leasing program to the central and western Gulf of Mexico, a small portion of the eastern Gulf, existing leases off California’s shore, and areas off of Alaska. Figure 5-4 Restricted Natural Gas Resource Areas in the U.S. Lower 48 Chapter 5, Page 5-10 Much of the nation’s oil and gas resource base resides on federal lands or in federal waters. A large portion of this is not open to exploration and development. For example, an estimated 40 percent or 137 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas resource in the Rockies is either closed to exploration (29 tcf) or is open to development under restrictive provisions (108 tcf). Bush Favors Dozens of Sites for Exploration By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Published: April 19, 2002 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E7DA153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B63 The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska was not the only place where the Bush administration was hoping to find more oil. It is also encouraging drilling at more than 50 new sites in the lower 48 states, particularly in the Rocky Mountains. In addition, President Bush set up a task force last May to examine how to streamline the permit and leasing process. In doing so, Mr. Bush said that the ''increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner is essential to the well-being of the American people.'' Close Senate Vote Shapes Up On Drilling in Wildlife Refuge By Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38235-2005Mar15.html After nearly two decades of efforts to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, advocates appear closer to getting their way than ever before. The Bush administration has long sought to open the refuge as part of the president's national energy policy, but the proposal has repeatedly run into opposition on Capitol Hill. 51-49 Senate Vote Backs Arctic Oil Drilling Longtime Bush Goal for Alaskan Wildlife Refuge Closer to Reality By Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html Opponents had hoped to win over a few fence-straddling lawmakers at the last minute, but they failed. One of them, freshman Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), said he voted for drilling only after receiving assurances from the White House that no drilling would occur on Florida's Gulf Coast through at least 2012. Oil prices reached record highs yesterday as global demand pushed production to its limits. During a news conference before the vote, Bush expressed concern about rising energy prices and again pressed for the opening of the refuge as part of a package of energy legislation the administration has been pushing. "This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement after the vote. Small Group of House Republicans Derails ANWR Drilling DATE: November 10, 2005 BACKGROUND: Both the U.S. House and Senate budget bills included a provision that would allow for oil drilling in a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate passed its budget bill last week, but leaders in the House dropped the ANWR provision late November 9 after a small group of moderate Republicans threatened to withhold support for the budget if ANWR were included. Although the House repeatedly has voted to allow drilling in ANWR, since most Democrats were expected to vote against the budget, the moderate House members had exceptional leverage in this instance. The budget measure the GOP moderates held hostage is intended to reduce government spending by $53.9 billion over five years. House vote for drilling in ANWR seen as symbolic Last Updated: Thursday, May 25, 2006 | 6:55 PM CT http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/05/25/nor-anwr-drill.html The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to ignore environmentalists and open the Alaska North Slope to oil drilling. But congressmen acknowledged that there was little chance their move would be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The House voted 225-201 (TH 5-25-06) to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area of 6,000 square kilometres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The refuge was set aside for protection in 1960 and expanded by Congress to 77,000 square kilometres in 1980 with a stipulation that its oil could be developed, but only if approved by Congress.
Ooooops...sorry about that last mess!
This is not new. President Bush has been trying to get CONgre$$ to approve drilling domestically since he was campaigning to be president!
National Energy Policy
May 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/2001/Forward.pdf
Congress has designated about 610 million acres off limits to leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which contains large amounts of recoverable oil and gas resources. These Congressional moratoria have been expanded by Presidential action through 2012, effectively confining the federal OCS leasing program to the central and western Gulf of Mexico, a small portion of the eastern Gulf, existing leases off California’s shore, and areas off of Alaska.
Figure 5-4 Restricted Natural Gas Resource Areas in the U.S. Lower 48
Chapter 5, Page 5-10
Much of the nation’s oil and gas resource base resides on federal lands or in federal waters. A large portion of this is not open to exploration and development. For example, an estimated 40 percent or 137 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas resource in the Rockies is either closed to exploration (29 tcf) or is open to development under restrictive provisions (108 tcf).
Bush Favors Dozens of Sites for Exploration
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: April 19, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E7DA153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B63
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska was not the only place where the Bush administration was hoping to find more oil. It is also encouraging drilling at more than 50 new sites in the lower 48 states, particularly in the Rocky Mountains.
In addition, President Bush set up a task force last May to examine how to streamline the permit and leasing process. In doing so, Mr. Bush said that the ‘’increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner is essential to the well-being of the American people.’’
Close Senate Vote Shapes Up On Drilling in Wildlife Refuge
By Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38235-2005Mar15.html
After nearly two decades of efforts to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, advocates appear closer to getting their way than ever before.
The Bush administration has long sought to open the refuge as part of the president’s national energy policy, but the proposal has repeatedly run into opposition on Capitol Hill.
51-49 Senate Vote Backs Arctic Oil Drilling
Longtime Bush Goal for Alaskan Wildlife Refuge Closer to Reality
By Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
Opponents had hoped to win over a few fence-straddling lawmakers at the last minute, but they failed. One of them, freshman Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), said he voted for drilling only after receiving assurances from the White House that no drilling would occur on Florida’s Gulf Coast through at least 2012.
Oil prices reached record highs yesterday as global demand pushed production to its limits. During a news conference before the vote, Bush expressed concern about rising energy prices and again pressed for the opening of the refuge as part of a package of energy legislation the administration has been pushing.
“This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand,” Bush said in a statement after the vote.
Small Group of House Republicans Derails ANWR Drilling
DATE: November 10, 2005
BACKGROUND: Both the U.S. House and Senate budget bills included a provision that would allow for oil drilling in a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate passed its budget bill last week, but leaders in the House dropped the ANWR provision late November 9 after a small group of moderate Republicans threatened to withhold support for the budget if ANWR were included. Although the House repeatedly has voted to allow drilling in ANWR, since most Democrats were expected to vote against the budget, the moderate House members had exceptional leverage in this instance.
The budget measure the GOP moderates held hostage is intended to reduce government spending by $53.9 billion over five years.
House vote for drilling in ANWR seen as symbolic
Last Updated: Thursday, May 25, 2006 | 6:55 PM CT
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/05/25/nor-anwr-drill.html
The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to ignore environmentalists and open the Alaska North Slope to oil drilling.
But congressmen acknowledged that there was little chance their move would be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The House voted 225-201 (TH 5-25-06) to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area of 6,000 square kilometres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The refuge was set aside for protection in 1960 and expanded by Congress to 77,000 square kilometres in 1980 with a stipulation that its oil could be developed, but only if approved by Congress.
Might have been easier to get this done if he had made even the slightest effort to do so when repubs controlled both houses of congress.
Campaign 2000:
Energy:
The Bush campaign supports a comprehensive energy reform bill which includes initiatives for energy conserving technologies as well as decreasing the foreign dependence on oil through increased domestic production and the use of non-fossil fuel based energy production methods.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and other domestic fields would decrease dependence on oil imports, particularly from the Middle East. However, many environmentalists hold that it will produce such small amounts of petroleum as to be effectively useless and will needlessly harm the environment.
Interesting and educational reading can be found here. Chapter 5 begins the discussion on Increasing Domestic Energy Supplies from the Bush Administration 2001.
Drilling in ANWR was debated in the Senate in April 2002. By a vote of 46 to 54, the Senate failed to vote cloture and thus limit debate on April 18th.
So...who were the republicans that sold us out?
Roll Call Vote
NAYs ---54
(republicans voting with the rats)
Chafee (R-RI) -- FIRED!
Collins (R-ME)
DeWine (R-OH) -- FIRED!
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
* John Sydney McCain (R-AZ) * -- "presumptive” republican presidential nominee...yippee!
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
YEAs ---46
(Rats voting with the Republicans)
Akaka (D-HI)
Breaux (D-LA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Miller (D-GA)
Drilling in ANWR came up for a vote again in 2005. Once again, the "republicans" in the sInate stopped it dead!
ARCTIC DRILLING (Published: 03.20.2005)
On Wednesday the Senate, voting 49 for and 51 against, rejected a plan by Democrats requiring a higher hurdle for the Senate to approve oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This occurred during debate on the congressional budget blueprint (S Con Res 18).
The vote makes any bill to launch drilling filibuster-proof by allowing the Senate to approve it on a simple majority vote. In previous years, supporters needed 60 votes to authorize drilling. The project would directly affect about 2,000 coastal acres in the pristine region of northeastern Alaska.
A yes vote opposed ANWR drilling.
● Yes: John McCain, R -- Ooooops! There you are again, Johnny!
Press Conference of the President - February 28, 2008:
Secondly, it's -- people got to understand that our energy policy needs to be focused on a lot of things -- one, renewables, which is fine, which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming dependent on oil overseas. And this -- I view it as a transitory period to new technologies that will change the way we live, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military bases, but, no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of something, as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is going to go up.
Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.
In September of 2001, when President Bush had virtually the entire nation behind him, he could have at that time said: “Look, there’s 2 things we have to do. One, drastically increase domestic energy production to stop sending money to Islamofacist states. Two, build a border fence in the south to protect ourselves from that obvious terrorist-infiltration route.”
He did neither. As a result we have cultural chaos, economic instability (greatly exaggerated by the media but still real), energy insanity and Juan McCain as the “Republican” presidential candidate.
We really are up sht creek without a paddle, and I hate to say it. But. “It’s all Bush’s fault.”
Why didn’t you push for drilling six years ago, President Bush? Where were you then?
Thank goodness he’s pushing for something sensible for a change.
Might have been easier to get this done if he had made even the slightest effort to do so when repubs controlled both houses of congress.
This is NOT NEW for President Bush!
Who almost single handedly thwarted every attempt to drill ANWR!
The Washington [bleep] is going to spin this, but dims are being exposed as being in charge as gas has nearly doubled for Americans///
Fortunately, I've long ago become inured to leftist hypocrisy; so I'm not angry about seeing such a blatant example of it. However, I'm now worried about living next door to a superpower; where it appears that half of the electorate support the high-gas-price party — on the basis that they want to reduce gas prices.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Very disappointing that so many Republicans don’t want to see this happen.
One more reason to despise McCain.
And even more proof that the two party system as we knew it is dead and gone.
But to say that the end result of the energy policy today is "all Bush's fault", when there are decades of culpability involved, is simply not credible. IMHO, after 911, had he tried to accomplish the energy policy, even the one he is proposing today, he would have faced complete resistance from the left and the MSM and it could well have bled over into other area that he has been able to accomplish.
This does not excuse him for not trying with energy or with immigration...though in immigration his views are the antithesis of what we need and he would not have done so in any case.
You are exactly right. Bush had a historic opportunity after 9/11 to make fundamental changes in our immigration policy and energy policy. And he even had a GOP-controlled congress to boot.
Bush totally wasted the opportunity. I give him credit for tax cuts, Supreme court appointments, and taking the war on terror to the terrorists, but it could have been so much more.
>>>W is right about this. He should beat the dhimmis over the head about their obtuseness.
For once in a long time... Bush is correct.
Pro-nuclear and drill in the U.S. bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.