Madame Speaker's real agenda?

[The Big Dog]

We all are painfully aware of Speaker Pelosi's recent shenanigans with blocking an up or down vote on removing the Congressional ban on oil exploration on the outer continental shelf. But, like so many political issues down through the ages, it appears that Madame Speaker's obstinance is due, in part, to some investments on her part.

Surprise, surprise, surprise....

Pelosi's Big Wind Boondoggle
Michelle Malkin
The New York Post

HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes "hand maidens of the oil companies." Let's call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.

Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.

Which brings us to Pelosi's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income' " of $100,001 to $250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural-gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens, the former oilman turned wind-power evangelist.

Pickens and Pelosi both downplay the need to drill for more US oil. Instead, the Pickens plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and free up natural gas for transportation needs.

<< snipped >>

The wind venture, as Pickens himself admits, depends on permanent federal subsidies.

Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him. She bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

"She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source," reported dontgomovement.com.

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi's home state of California to dole out $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable-energy incentives - namely, natural gas and wind.

All aboard the gravy train.... fueled by your taxpayer dollars and mine. T. Boone Pickens wouldn't give a rat's patootie about wind generated power if there wasn't a sure profit, and a big one at that, in it for him.

And so, it would seem, for Madame Speaker as well.

Liberal and progressive Democrats please feel free to chime in.

[saunterelle]

I'm happy to chime in.

Isn't McCain's plan suggesting that we need to drill while we establish alternative sources of energy? In his commercial he's even got pictures of oil rigs in the ocean and WINDMILLS providing clean energy. Now, T. Boone Pickens is a billionaire in his 80s. I seriously doubt that he's promoting wind power just for the money.

It IS right for Pelosi to refuse to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include government subsidies for sustainable eco-alternatives. If it were up to the GOP we'd be focusing all our resources on drilling for oil and nothing on the future. That's the problem with the GOP, they are too dense and beholden to plan for the future. They couldn't even raise limits on miles per gallon for new vehicles because they're in Detroit's back pocket. The GOP wants to put all our eggs in one basket. Well, it would eventually bring this country to its knees!

If you consider the definition of "progressive" it is one who changes to meet the needs of our future. That agility is essential in the 21st century. The dinosaur GOP just can't get it done, they're stuck in the past. And Grandpa McCain is a perfect symbol to represent their party.

[harpman1]

An ulterior motive?

Based on greed & profit?

Manifesting itself in policies contrary to the public good?

Denied with bald-faced lies?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Oh, she's a Democrat. I see.

Never mind. I thought there might have been something newsworthy here.

[bolverk]

Wind power is destined to fail. The acreage that is required for the windmills is to great for the return. Now, if you could somehow put windmills on floating platforms and put them off our coast, then you might have something. Until then, wind is a pipe dream.

[saunterelle]

Aug 13, 2008 12:54:26 GMT -5 harpman1 said:

An ulterior motive?

Based on greed & profit?

Manifesting itself in policies contrary to the public good?

Denied with bald-faced lies?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Oh, she's a Democrat. I see.

Never mind. I thought there might have been something newsworthy here.

You're kidding right? The Republicans are the party of no-bid contracts to Haliburton and Carlyle for nothing but "greed and profit."

[harpman1]

Two companies in the world do what Halliburton do. Two only.

One is French.

Which would possibly explain your desire for Halliburton to not get the contract. They are an American company.

I never said greed & profit were bad. Mistress Pelosi does that. I was simply pointing out her "inconsistencies' when the profit & greed are benefitting her.

[The Big Dog]

Aug 13, 2008 12:53:42 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I'm happy to chime in.

Isn't McCain's plan suggesting that we need to drill while we establish alternative sources of energy? In his commercial he's even got pictures of oil rigs in the ocean and WINDMILLS providing clean energy.

True... McCain is suggesting that we need to develop alternative sources which are not yet market ready, and backfill in the interim with coal, oil, nuclear and hydro (all proven and efficient technologies BTW) until those other alternatives are more efficient and become market ready. That is a truly balanced plan.

However you apparently didn't read the article to the point of noticing that both Pickens and Pelosi are insistent that we don't have to drill at all, or you simply are ignoring that tidbit because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Now, T. Boone Pickens is a billionaire in his 80s. I seriously doubt that he's promoting wind power just for the money.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that naive?

It IS right for Pelosi to refuse to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include government subsidies for sustainable eco-alternatives. If it were up to the GOP we'd be focusing all our resources on drilling for oil and nothing on the future. That's the problem with the GOP, they are too dense and beholden to plan for the future.

Now I have to call shenanigans. You are trying to have it both ways and I'm flagging you for dispensing BS without a license on that one. Go back to your comments above about McCain's commercials. McCain is the Republican nominee. That makes him a Republican and the putative leader of the party moving forward. He has said clearly, as you've called out, the need to develop alternative energy sources.

Remember also that the up or down vote Madame Speaker is blocking is only to lift the Congressional ban and let the several states decide whether or not they want to allow exploration and the economic boost that would let loose.

So who is the bad guy here? I have to agree with the article that it is, or looks like anyway, Madame Speaker.

They couldn't even raise limits on miles per gallon for new vehicles because they're in Detroit's back pocket. The GOP wants to put all our eggs in one basket. Well, it would eventually bring this country to its knees!

Flush out your headgear and get your facts straight. Both of Michigan's senators are Democrats. One of them, Carl Levin, is an icon of tax and spend liberalism and is bought and paid for by the automakers. The other, Debbie Stabenow, just started her second term this year. In fact since the days of Arthur Vandenberg and Homer Ferguson, which ended in the 1950's a total of 3 Republicans have held a seat in the Senate from Michigan for only 22 out of the 53 intervening years, and only one of the three, Robert Griffin, served more than one six year term. Otherwise, Michigan's Senate contingent has been dominated by Democrats.

The Michigan delegation to the House has 9 of fifteen seats occuppied by Republicans, however three of those 9 were lost by the Dems in the 2004 election, including now Senator Stabenow's seat and the seat of longtime House power player David Bonior. The delgation includes such Democrat notables as Senator Levin's older brother Sandy, and John Conyers from Detroit who has been in the House since 1965. In fact the whole delegation around the Motor City is pretty much hardcore Democrat thanks to the union vote.

If you consider the definition of "progressive" it is one who changes to meet the needs of our future. That agility is essential in the 21st century. The dinosaur GOP just can't get it done, they're stuck in the past. And Grandpa McCain is a perfect symbol to represent their party.

And again I call shenanigans... you're trying to have it both ways.

The problem here is that your icon, Madame Speaker, has got her hand squarely in the cookie jar. That much is indisputable. So to cover for her, you wax rhetorically about McCain's commercials, which are supportive of exactly the energy policy you seem to preach, and then claim the exact opposite to muddy the waters protecting Madame Speaker.

This is all too typical of the modern left... argue it from whichever position is convenient at the time with no intellectual or moral honesty. Just get the Democrats elected.

[saunterelle]

"Two companies in the world do what Halliburton do. Two only.

One is French."

Nice excuse. The purpose of the bidding process is to determind the market price so that taxpayer dollars aren't wasted. In other words: Capitalism. So, no-bid contracts are unAmerican! Doesn't that bother you? With a no-bid contract Haliburton can charge whatever they want, no matter how inflated the price. And they have.

When all is said and done, this mistake of a war will cost taxpayers more than 1 trillion dollars. If you're seriously defending no-bid contracts I think you'll find plenty of opposition from the American people, many of whom are struggling to buy food, gas, and other bare necessities.

[harpman1]

Better to send the $$ to France, then.

This war is no mistake.

Your blind opposition is.

[saunterelle]

No, your clinging to a fallacy that most of America has finally come to realize is simply stubborn.

[harpman1]

American success in war really grates some folks' gizzards.

Our military has a Commander-in-chief.

When we start fighting wars based on polls, call me.

[saunterelle]

Then call me when we start fighting wars based on accurate intelligence with experienced leaders and a solid plan that includes an exit strategy.

How many Generals and Secretaries of Defense have we gone through before even starting to get Iraq rebuilt?

And I'd hardly call it "America's success in war." The laughing stock of the world is more like it.