Energy

Shimkus: Obama/Biden Destined To Fail

Adam Doster — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:20:35 -0700

Republican Rep. John Shimkus was not bashful in his skepticism of the Democratic presidential ticket, which visited his neck of the woods on Saturday. Speaking to the State Journal-Register, he said the partnership of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden was "destined to fail." Why? Their hesitancy to push offshore oil drilling, of course, which he terms "American-made energy":

“For the liberal Democrats and the leadership team that can lead their ticket, supply is not part of the equation,” he said. “For small-town, rural America — the middle class and the lower middle class — it’s almost an attack on the poor and the middle class.”

I won't belabor the point, but the insinuation that drilling off the cost will lower the price of gasoline for working Americans is completely bunk. So is the idea that Republican leaders support "American-made energy." Let's remember the loads of legislation Shimkus and his colleagues blocked that would have led to large-scale investment in renewable energy.

It's not Obama who is destined to fail -- it's the "drill now, drill forever" strategy Shimkus can't seem to shake. Read our posts here, here, and here to learn more about the GOP's dead-end ideas.

Kirk Ad Violated Copyright Laws

Adam Doster — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:34:14 -0700

Here's some more evidence that Rep. Mark Kirk should stop talking about energy. On the same day that he presented a false proposition between offshore drilling and importing Iranian oil, the North Shore Republican launched an attack ad against Democratic challenger Dan Seals. The TV spot criticizes Seals for his May campaign event in which he subsidized a drop in gas prices at a 10th District service station to $1.85. “Dan Seals: His stunt wasted more gas than it saved,” the ad says. “Mark Kirk: longterm solutions, not campaign stunts.”

But before running the commercial, the campaign forgot to check one tiny detail -- namely, copyright laws:

Rep. Mark Kirk’s (R-Ill.) campaign has taken down its latest ad attacking Democratic challenger Dan Seals after it used news footage without copyright permission from the Chicago NBC affiliate.

NBC’s legal department asked Kirk’s campaign to take down the ad soon after it began airing in the district.

The ad attacked Seals for holding a campaign event where the Democratic candidate partially subsidized the price of gas. It used a video clip from Chicago’s NBC affiliate, WMAQ, where the anchor said “a campaign stunt is costing Congressional candidate Dan Seals more than he expected.”

“As a general policy, we don’t want political campaigns using our footage in our ads especially in the ones criticizing an opponent,” said NBC Universal media counsel Steve Chung.

Politico says the campaign is now up with a similar version of the ad, but without the NBC footage.

More On Kirk's "80 Billion"

Adam Doster — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:43:54 -0700

In our post earlier today about GOP Rep. Mark Kirk's WLS interview, we noted his suggestion that America could develop 80 billion barrels of oil domestically by lifting the ban on offshore drilling and wondered where he got that number. Well, we looked into it and discovered that the 10th District Republican is actually conflating two very different government estimates. In doing so, he's more than quadrupling the amount of oil thought to be available in the offshore areas under federal moratorium.

First, the 80 billion.

As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior did an assessment of oil resources available on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). According to June 2007 testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee by MMS acting director Walter Cruickshank, the OCS contains "an additional 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil (bbl) and 420 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas." Ergo, Kirk's "80 billion" claim, which the Republican staff of the Senate Energy Committee and Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) have used as well.

But that's not the entire story. The 86 billion figure is the number of barrels that could be potentially found in the entire OCS. But the entire OCS isn't under federal moratorium. So how much of that total estimate can be attributed to the areas under the ban? The MMS detailed that amount in a July 30 press release:

The Outer Continental Shelf currently provides 27 percent of U.S. domestic oil production and 15 percent of domestic natural gas production -- most of that from the Gulf of Mexico. The areas under a congressional ban contain an additional 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in yet-to-be-discovered fields.

We know the numbers "18" and "80" sound similar, Mark (kind of like "Osama" and "Obama"). But that doesn't mean they can be used interchangeably.

Kirk's False Proposition: Either Drill At Home Or Buy From Iran

Adam Doster — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27:18 -0700

Rep. Mark Kirk, in his first appearance on WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show since the infamous "shoot on sight" fiasco, was back in rare form today. This time, the North Shore Republican offered listeners a false proposition: either drill for oil offshore or buy oil from the Iranians. Listen here:

Internal mp3

KIRK: We have a fundamental choice. We need to get off oil, but for the time being we are still dependent on it. We can either buy 80 billion barrels of oil from the Iranians or from ourselves. And we should buy it from ourselves.

It's unclear where Kirk got the 80 billion figure. That aside, his assumption that the United States will be forced to rely on Iran if we don't feed our oil dependency at home is a pretty sneaky way of scaring voters into the GOP's pro-drilling camp.

For over a decade, America has kept Iranian crude out of the domestic supply through a ban on their oil imports and congressionally mandated sanctions on companies that attempt to develop Iran's oil and gas. Given the political discourse in Washington surrounding the Iranian regime -- a reality Kirk is well aware of -- it's incredibly unlikely that the ban will be lifted in the near future. But that doesn't stop Kirk from using the "scary" Tehran regime as his foil, fearmongering about hypothetical Iranian influence on American life instead of arguing for his favored proposal honestly.

But just for fun, let's suppose we did lift the Iranian ban and drop the oil-related sanctions. How would this affect supply? Robert Naiman recently posed this question to economist Dean Baker, who responded with some interesting data:

"Suppose they [Iran] open up to foreign investment and production goes up 1-2 million barrels a day after a few years...It's 5 to 10 times McCain's offshore drilling."

So by equating these two options -- drill offshore (adding 200,000 extra barrels per day) or open the U.S. market to Iran (1-2 million extra barrels per day) -- Kirk is greatly exaggerating the impact of expanded domestic production. It might be an effective electoral gambit, but more U.S. drilling just won't effect the energy crisis in any meaningful, immediate way. And Kirk should own up to it.

UPDATE: We looked into Kirk's "80 billion" figure and discovered that the 10th District Republican is actually conflating two very different government estimates. In doing so, he's more than quadrupling the amount of oil thought to be available in the offshore areas under federal moratorium. Read our full explanation here.

Shimkus: "If Drilling Is Good, Drilling And Mining Is Better"

Adam Doster — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:54:55 -0700

For those of you who just can't get enough of GOP Rep. John Shimkus' energy shenanigans, we've got some more fuel for your fire.

Following his false suggestion at the state fair last week that the Democrats favor "doing nothing" about the energy crisis, Think Progress flagged a House GOP press conference today in which Shimkus proves he's no logician:

"[I]f drilling is good, drilling and mining is better." A 5th grader could dissect this argument with ease, but let's dish that task off to Matt Yglesias instead:

And, indeed, it’s true that if we think we should give zero consequences to the environmental, economic, and public health harms caused by the resource-extraction activities of the fossil fuel industry then we really should go beyond mining in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and all along America’s coastline — why not tear up as much of the country as possible looking for coal?

Sadly, Shimkus would agree. You see, he isn't too concerned with that whole global warming phenomenon. That's a problem cooked up by the "enviro extremists" who "play on people's emotions" by discussing the dangers of climate change.

In short: drilling isn't "good." There are no short-term benefits and the long-term prospects aren't great either. In fact, Shimkus and colleague Peter Roskam had to drastically fudge their numbers to make their drill-heavy VISION Act sound appealing. The same goes for coal. Meanwhile, the environmental and economic costs are enormous.

We're at a fork in the road and it's time to forge a new path, leaving Shimkus' anachronistic ideas behind.

Fun At The State Fair

Josh Kalven — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:47:51 -0700

The Illinois Republicans appear to have put on quite a display at the state fair this year. We already noted the ramblings by 18th District GOP congressional candidate Aaron Schock (above left) about Barack Obama's "level of socialism." Meanwhile, as has been noted on numerous other sites, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna (above center) also put his foot in his mouth, saying that if Abraham Lincoln "were here today, he would have to tell a story of a house divided that’s even more outrageous than the one that lived in his time," referring to the political climate in Springfield these days. The Rockford Register-Star's Aaron Chambers rightly skewers McKenna's suggestion that the current standoff between Illinois Democrats is somehow "more outrageous" than the fight between the North and South over slavery.

But it doesn't stop there. Earlier in the week, Rep. John Shimkus (above right) took to the stage on Agriculture Day and railed against the Democratic leadership in Congress for not allowing a vote on offshore drilling prior to the August recess. Maybe it was all the hay laying around, but Shimkus couldn't resist building a strawman. Check out his suggestion that his favored energy proposal is "in conflict to those who say, 'Let's do nothing'":

Internal mp3

But who has said we should "do nothing" about the energy crisis? The Democrats? To the contrary, they've put forth various energy proposals, only to see them blocked by the GOP. Moreover, the Democratic leadership has recently indicated that it is willing to compromise with the Republicans on a comprehensive energy bill. But the House Republicans like Shimkus have refused to come to the table, as Grist's David Roberts recently pointed out:

Now Republicans have gotten the idea in their head that drilling for oil in protected areas in the U.S. is a political winner, so they are camping out in D.C., throwing a hissy fit, demanding that Pelosi bring Congress back into session and allow them and up-or-down vote on drilling.

They are packaging this fiasco as an "all of the above" energy strategy -- as in, they support renewables and efficiency, but they also want drilling. Sounds so reasonable, right?

So a group of 10 legislators, five from each party, has put together a compromise bill, which would do exactly what they Republicans say they want: it would open up protected areas to drilling, while also boosting efficiency and renewables.

Obama and Pelosi have both signaled in the last week that they would be willing to support the bill. They will give a little ground on drilling, which they don't favor, in order to put in place measures that support renewables, which they do favor. For their efforts, the media has now said they've "flip-flopped" on drilling.

Meanwhile, McCain has refused to support the compromise. House Republicans have refused to support the compromise. Rush Limbaugh and his band of dittoheads are going absolutely ballistic on the compromise, flooding the legislators responsible with angry phone calls and claiming that it's going to sink McCain's presidential campaign.

More On Biggert's "Dictator" Accusation

Adam Doster — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:17:34 -0700

We caught Republican Rep. Judy Biggert yesterday describing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in rather unflattering terms for not allowing an up-and-down vote on offshore oil drilling. Turns out, Biggert wasn't alone. The Center for American Progress' Wonk Room has compiled a full list of House Republicans who have tried to brand the California Democrat as a dictator or tyrant since the chamber adjourned earlier this month. My personal favorite? This strange historical analogy, courtesy of Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC):

“When the people of France were starving, they went to the queen and said, ‘The people have no bread.’ The queen’s answer was, ‘Let them eat cake.’ That is not the kind of answer we expect from the leader of the people’s house in the United States of America.”

The irony, of course, is that the House Republicans have committed more than their fair share of obstruction during the 110th Congress. The Republicans attempted to force the House to adjourn repeatedly before August 1. Republican senators have filibustered energy legislation well over 10 times. Conservatives have outright rejected the so-called "Gang of 10" compromise, too. Here's Grist's David Roberts:

Meanwhile, McCain has refused to support the compromise. House Republicans have refused to support the compromise. Rush Limbaugh and his band of dittoheads are going absolutely ballistic on the compromise, flooding the legislators responsible with angry phone calls and claiming that it's going to sink McCain's presidential campaign.

Republicans have also abused a parliamentary maneuver called the "motion to recommit," which gives the minority a final shot to amend a bill before it's voted on by the body -- effectively delaying, modifying, or killing the legislation. From CQ:

So far, Republicans have racked up 116 motions to recommit during the 110th Congress, more than double the previous record of 56 set by the 109th Congress. Of those motions, 24 were adopted, far more than the previous record of six during the 106th Congress.

While Biggert and her cohorts play the victim, it's important to remember that the Republican minority has wielded a remarkable amount of power since the Democrats won back Congress in 2006. Indeed, if Pelosi is a dictator, she's doing a sorry job of consolidating power.

Biggert: Pelosi Is "Being The Dictator" On Drilling

Adam Doster — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:45:10 -0700

What's gotten into the House GOP's drinking water? So enthralled with their worthless plan to drill for more oil offshore, congressmen from across the country have infused their rhetoric with a little extra dose of hyperbole. Rep. Don Manzullo thinks the GOP's empty chamber stunt could be "America’s greatest hour." Minority Leader John Boehner said Americans "will hang" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't call for an up-and-down drilling vote. And this morning on WLS' Don Wade & Roma, 13th District GOP Rep. Judy Biggert joined in on the Pelosi-bashing fun. Listen here:

Internal mp3

What the American people want is for us to work together to come up with solutions, not to have Nancy Pelosi being the dictator. This is a democracy.

And Biggert isn't the only House Republican choosing to describe Pelosi this way. Check out this clip (caught by the Center for American Progress) of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) during an August 6 appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal:

As Josh noted last week, the suggestion that the Democratic leadership is somehow infringing on the GOP minority's rights by adjourning the chamber for August recess is tough to swallow. After all, prior to August 1, the Republicans repeatedly attempted to force the House to adjourn, as the Washington Post's Dana Milbank recently reported. Furthermore, if the Republicans want to raise a ruckus about obstructionism, maybe they should look to the U.S. Senate, where the GOP minority has blocked a record number of bills favored by both the Democratic majority and the American people.

Drilling Into IL-14

Josh Kalven — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:46:55 -0700

If we needed any more evidence that the Republicans plan on beating the pro-drilling drum all the way to Election Day, here it is.

The Courier News reported yesterday on the National Republican Congressional Committee's (NRCC) efforts to paint 14th District Rep. Bill Foster as "obstructionist" for voting to adjourn the House for August recess:

"Where's Bill Foster?" read the title of a recent NRCC e-mail blast to the media.

In it, the committee -- which spent close to $1.3 million in support of Oberweis leading into March's contest -- targets Foster for voting to recess instead of staying in Washington to debate energy policy. Last week, the NRCC released an "energy report card" that painted Foster as unwilling to get behind solutions to energy issues.

"Bill Foster has used his brief stint in office to define himself as an out-of-touch obstructionist, but this report card paints an alarming picture of a member of Congress who will do anything he can to side with Democrat leadership instead of the people of Illinois," NRCC spokesman Ken Spain stated in one release

The fact that the Republicans are targeting Foster in this fashion shows that they plan on using the August recess to attack any and all Democrats. After all, Foster is not exactly anti-drilling. He recently joined a bipartisan group of House members in supporting a bill that would expand offshore drilling and use some of the revenue from those new leases to fund the development of renewable and alternative energy sources.

Is Foster's chosen bill the right answer for Democrats? Not in my opinion. But he also can't be accused of "sid[ing] with the Democratic leadership."

Better Poll Questions Reveal Ambivalence About Drilling

Adam Doster — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:23:20 -0700

House Republicans believe they've struck liquid (political) gold with their recent oil drilling gambit. Rep. Peter Roskam cut his vacation short to head to D.C. and voice his concern. Rep. Don Manzullo says this could be "America’s greatest hour." Minority Leader John Boehner even thinks Americans are so eager to drill that they "will hang" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't call for an up-and-down vote.

But are Americans really that supportive of the GOP proposals? Guest blogging for Kevin Drum, Gallup managing editor David Moore says that when asked about drilling in isolation, Americans voice great support for the approach. But things get a lot murkier when the poll questions are more subtle and realistic:

A couple of polls addressed the energy issue a bit differently, and they found a more ambivalent public. Pew Research, for example, asked which of two approaches should receive higher priority: "expanding exploration, mining and drilling and the construction of new power plants, OR, more energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices?" Instead of overwhelming support for more oil drilling, the public was evenly divided between that approach and conservation (47 percent to 45 percent respectively).

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll offered five different approaches to dealing with the energy problems. Almost half (46 percent) opted for energy conservation and more emphasis on wind and solar, while 40 percent chose offshore oil drilling and drilling in protected areas in Alaska, while 10 percent preferred nuclear power.

And the CNN poll actually measured intensity of opinion, by asking if people "strongly" or "mildly" favored, or "strongly" or "mildly" opposed increased offshore oil drilling. The results found 46 percent "strongly" in favor, with 18 percent "strongly" opposed. More than a third, 35 percent, held only "mild" opinions. (In all discussions of the CNN results, however, there was no mention of the "mild" and "strong" opinions. The two groups were combined according to favor and oppose, which is typical of the way poll results are treated.)

Read the whole post here.