Must be Bush’s fault

Fueling America – Where the Rubber Meets the Road:

Oil Gusher

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration:

  • House Republicans: 91% Supported
  • House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid:

  • House Republicans: 97% Supported
  • House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration:

  • House Republicans: 90% Supported
  • House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:

  • House Republicans: 81% Supported
  • House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity:

  • House Republicans: 97% Supported
  • House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY:

  • 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
  • 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Elect a Democrat. He’s sure to straighten this all out.

(Via Random Nuclear Strikes)

Comments

  1. Simple math says that if a greater percentage of Republicans supported these things than the percentage of Democrats who opposed them, and the Republicans were the majority party in Congress for 12 years and spent much of that time with a Republican president in the Executive office, then what is their excuse for not passing legislation that would allow all this stuff you list, Murdoc? I mean, you seem to have created your list to damn the Democrats, but it really damns the Republicans, doesn’t it? Of course, it also highlights the simplistic belief that you need to have to adhere to the Republican talking points on this matter. If you are a true believer then you think that the oil companies have all along wanted to drill in Alaska, or do all these other things that require huge investments in new technologies and riskier exploration strategies, instead of sitting back and letting the Saudis take all the drilling risks. To believe these talking points you have to have selective amnesia with regard to the record profits the oil companies are making off the current situation, and accept unblinkingly, the assertion that what the oil companies really want is for the US to be self sufficient in energy production despite the fact that it would hurt their bottom line. Of course, if a Democrat suggests these oil companies go against their own economic interests then they’re damn socialists. If the Republicans suggest the same thing, they are moderates, dammit, not liberals. Keep falling for the same rhetoric and voting for the same people, each time expecting a better result.

  2. Hey, which side of these issues was McCain on? You don’t have to answer. I already know :(. This is a great argument for voting Republicans into Congress, but not so much for voting for McCain.

  3. 2 + 2 still = 4. The domestic energy production stats are particularly damning for House Democrats, not Republicans. What’s up on these issues on the Senate side though? And Kevin’s completely right about McCain’s maverick status biting him in the a$$ on this one. The big problem with both parties is they’ve polarised towards their respective extremes. Over the last 30-40 years, it’s become harder and harder to be middle of the road in either party. Wonder where all the gridlock comes from? Maybe from all the left wingers and real conservatives, who vilify each other, rather than work with each other. Show’em you care……………vote Libertarian…….for a change.

  4. Okay Guys: I’ve never been a big defender of the Republicans, though a lot of folks like to call me neocon and stuff in the comments. Even a cursory glance at my political posts will reveal that to be untrue, but since when did untruths get in the way of name callers? So I’ll bite on this: You show me which of the following candidates running for president is the one that meets your criteria:

    • John McCain
    • Barack Obama

    I know you wish there were other names on the list, but there aren’t. Just because these guys are unqualified and undeserving doesn’t mean that qualified and deserving candidates are running. Wish all you want. Better yet, get your guy nominated next time. I felt I had a poor list of choices in my state’s primary, but I voted for the best one. He finished a distant fifth. The way this is shaping up, anything besides a vote for McCain is a vote for Obama. People voting for fringe candidates or staying home out of disgust or to make a statement are going to elect Obama. I agree that the Conservative/Libertarian (I consider myself a bit of a libertarian with mainly conservative opinions about things) movement needs to get people into Congress. Even that is looking shaky at this point, from what I gather. It looks like the Dems are going to do fairly well in both the House and the Senate. With a Democrat House and Senate, is President Obama better or worse than President McCain?

  5. What I am seeing is that there is no difference. When polled, all the Republicans line up on one side of an issue, all the Democrats line up on the other, but neither side has a good answer, they’re just different. They act like those are the only two possible answers, but they’re not, and generally each answer is tailored to make their big money supporters happy and to screw the rest of us. The funny thing is the way they make us think they’re doing us a big favor when they do screw us. The louder the rhetoric gets, the less difference there is between the parties. All the yelling and screaming only serves to mask the fact that there is no difference. It’s all marketing and hype. There is no substance. Look at the relevant facts. The fact is that oil companies are making record profits. If you were the CEO of a company making record profits, would you be looking to change how you do business? No. The Rs and Ds can yell back and forth about whose fault our reliance on foreign oil is, but the bottom line is both are serving the same master, big oil. Big oil is making big profits and doesn’t want to change that model, so vote for an R or a D and you’ll get the same result, reliance on foreign oil. In addition to the oil companies being happy with our reliance on foreign oil, the nations inside and outside of OPEC are happy with that arrangement too. So again, what do you do if you’re CEO of a big oil company, try to cut those countries out by developing risky new ways of extracting domestic oil only to have OPEC drop prices on you radically as you try to implement that new technology? Here’s a news flash, OPEC does not love us. They love our money, and that’s the end of their giving a damn about us. If we’re going to develop new sources of energy or new technologies, we’re going to have to PROTECT OUR INTERESTS. If we don’t protect our interests, no one else is going to do it for us. If we don’t develop a clear energy policy that is embraced not just by the lip service of one party or the other, but by a broad base of support across the US we will continue to get screwed by countries who do look out for their own national interests. It’s time for people to stop being Rs and Ds, and for them to start being Americans. We are being screwed over by the Saudis who take our money and use it to kill our kids. We are being screwed over by the Chinese who are doing pretty much the same thing and are even a bigger long term threat. I am sick of the R and D con game. I want real solutions for a change, not smoke and mirrors and marketing hype.

  6. Read the below link. http://gas2.org/2008/06/10/senate-gop-blocks-windfall-profits-tax-on-big-oil/ Also LETS DRILL MORE is not the way of the future. The oil should be conserved when we REALLY need it. Let other countries drill their supplies dry. I would say that significant investments in better mass transit and taxes on people who drive big cars would definately be a step in the right direction. There is no reason for Mr. John Doe to take his Ford F150 for a trip to the mall, when a small car would do the trick just as well. Yes there are people who make a living with their truck, however the reality is that most people do not. And even for people who use trucks for work, many of them would be fine with something that is called a VAN, which are wayy more efficient vehicles. The easy way to solve this oil problem is by drilling and exploring more oil. Which is what the Republicans want. The hard way to solve this, is by forcing people and companies to use/make more efficient products, which would lead to a greener future. Which is what the Dems want. My 2 Cents

  7. I was surprised to see so many comments on this new post. Anyways, the list Murdoc present is impressive, but like dfens said, it reflects on repubs too given their position of power over the last 8 years. I imagine dems would add that they strongly supported higher MPG standards on cars that repubs opposed. Finally, as we are being taught a lesson, for the second time, about relying on foreign suppliers for oil, will we ever realize we are setting ourselves up for the same thing in regards to the manufacturing base that we have been so eager to offsore?

  8. Murdoc, sorry, I was off typing my own rant when you posted your comments. I think I inadvertently addessed many of them, but one thing I’d like to add is that if there’s no substantial difference between the Rs and Ds, why not vote for someone else? I mean, if you’re going to get the same thing either way, what’s the down side to voting for someone else? As I said before, the Rs and Ds have ratcheted up the rhetoric because of the lack of a substantial difference between them. They know there’s no difference, so they start these personal attacks against candidates of the other party so there will be some difference. Why do you think they blame Bush for everything from the common cold to rain on your birthday? They are trying to make Bush the issue, not his policies, because his policies are their policies. There’s no substantial difference to talk about so they make the person the issue. The Republicans did the same thing with Clinton. So now we’ve been conned, let’s learn from it and move forward. Let’s not keep making the same mistakes.

  9. The belief that the country will be in no different of a place at the end of a 8 year McCain term versus an 8 year Obama term is just stupid. I use both ‘just’ and ‘stupid’ deliberately. Even if they agreed EXACTLY on 80% of issues (which they don’t), the remaining differences lead to such vastly different outcomes as to make the ‘you’re going to get the same thing’ point laughable. Without even getting into which position is better, take JUST Iraq. Look at the country (no, the world) in 2016 after these two guys implement their vastly different plans. If you think that 2016 is set in stone because both guys result in the same future, then I’m not sure we’re even living in the same PRESENT.

  10. Right. Every hear of Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic Congress that was going to end the war? What a friggen joke. They tell you whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever the hell they want to do in office. You can either wake up to that reality or keep up your true and sincere belief. I prefer to be awake. I am appalled by what passes for politics these days. Jokes about the other candidate being assasinated. There’s a whole wing of nuts who believe Bush caused 9/11. An equally large batch of lunatics that see Darwin and even scientists in general as their mortal enemies. It is to the point where there’s nothing to weird to be a part of politics these days. That would be great if we didn’t have real problems to solve.

  11. Every hear of Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic Congress that was going to end the war?’ No, who is that? I’d debate the points of your post (such as pointing out what Pelosi might do with a president that felt exactly as she does…except I don’t know who she is), but the fact that you believe the two potential 2016s will be no different means it’s a lost cause up front. Also…H1B!

  12. Why I stopped contributing to the GOP. They talk a good game about energy, tax reform, reducing government, etc… Then they don’t deliver a thing. Now they nominate a candidate who can’t even talk a good game about this stuff.

  13. Exactly! So they ratchet up the rhetoric to make you think there’s a difference. It’s all a bunch of crap. Check out what this Democrat congressman had to say for himself:

    The man was trying to question Mr. Kanjorski about his remarks that Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional elections by implying they could end the war if they controlled Congress. ‘Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that wasn’t true,’ Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting in August. ‘But you know the temptation to want to win back Congress -we sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.’ – The Times Tribune

    And when he’s caught in this lie, he assaults the guy with the camera. Let’s face it, the only difference between the two parties is the lies they tell, so why should I throw away my vote on either party? Why should my fear of one party gaining power stop me from voting for a candidate I can actually trust or believe (should one emerge)? The Ds and Rs are creating their own need through the web of bs they weave. The lies the Ds wind up their crowd with are as much aimed at infuriating the Rs as they are at stroking the Ds, and the Rs do the same thing. If they don’t, you’ll vote for someone who would look out for your interests and they’d be out of power.

  14. By the way, here’s what the US Constitution has to say (it’s ok, you can read it, you don’t need the Supreme Court to interpret it for you):

    Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;