What Are The Republicans Thinking...

I just can't believe this.....

A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.

A plan to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was also axed.

Still, passage of the broader plan cutting $54 billion from federal benefit programs through the end of the decade remains a challenge, even after the provision permitting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was dropped....

The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if that language remained....

Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill.

The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it.

Call me crazy but with gas prices at almost $3 a gallon, isn't now the time we should be drilling for our own oil? 

Did I wake up this morning in the Twilight Zone.... Am I not in Kansas anymore?  Do we even have an Republican party?

Lisa

Hat tip:  Michelle Malkin

Comments

[USMC Steve]

Lisa, although I find Republicans preferable to Democrats on philosophy, we need to purify our own gene pool, so there won't be so many Republican elected officials coming out of the shallow end of it.

This is just stupid, but at least the enemy is known to us now, and if they are acting like Dems, they are the enemy.

[Chris]

I'll call you crazy...you think drilling in ANWAR is going to have any effect on gas prices any time soon? I don't care about the Caribou, but I do care that this gives Americans a false sense of security--this does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil and I really think we need to do that--aside from the oil companies making huge amounts of money and screwing us at the pump, aside from the strife in the Middle East, oil is a finite resource. We are going to run out of it sooner or later--how 'bout we start planning now for when that happens?

[Matt Hurley]

There is at least a year's worth of oil in that field, Chris...it WILL have an effect on our foreign oil usage.

[Army of Steve]

Christ, you're wrong. This wasn't just ANWR, it was also on the coasts and in the Gulf that they werwe going to lift federal bans on exploration and development. These pod-people Republicans also blocked laws that would also have permitted more refineries, since we have very limited capacity. We have them concntrated in a few areas, and havent built a new one since the 70's. This itself places the entire US economy at risk -- something that is a very real problem as Katrina showed us.

What ever happened to polical courage to do the right things, like Ronald Reagan?

Now somone tell me again why we worked so hard to get a Republican President, House and Senate if they don't have the cojones to act like a majority party, and consistently display moral and political cowardice?

Who are these pod people and what did they do with the Republican Party?

[Chris]

Matt, for a year...and then what? Drill, don't drill I really don't care but this is a bandaid. It is not a solution. So, while you are drilling can we work on alternative fuel sources please?

[12 lber]

I'm a Democrat and I think oil exploration in ANWR is important. I also think that opinions of congressmen from the states effected by these lifting of bans on drilling (california and florida) should have "extra weight" in making these types of decisions. If ANWR is only going to provide one year's worth of oil we may have to go a different direction. I think GWB has his eye on Venezuela?

[w. chick]

Thank the Lord that moderate Republicans are finally breaking away for the radical right-wing of the party which has lead this country down a disastrous road with little or no success.. ANWR drilling is a red herring to deflect from the over-riding issue and that is this country's unwillingness to pursue alternate forms of energy in any real quantifiable, demonstrable way. The government estimates that only seven months of economically recoverable oil exists in the coastal plain and it would not be available for 10 years. The epic environmental consequences of such an action far outweigh the negligible benefit this country would reap.

Teddy Roosevelt - "Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

[12 lber]

here, here!

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "Matt, for a year...and then what?"

ME: There is AT LEAST a year's worth of oil in that field...but after that, you tap Florida and California via off-shore platforms.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all about getting us off oil, but sticking your head in the sand by saying "don't drill there because it won't help us" is crazy. I've never heard from a reliable source that it would take anything like ten years to get that oil in to the market...I don't know where Chick gets her(?) data from, but I'd love to see it if it isn't from some tree-hugger outfit.

Chick: "The epic environmental consequences of such an action far outweigh the negligible benefit this country would reap."

ME: What "epic environmental consequences"? There's nothing there! Furthermore, the caribou have THRIVED living next to existing oil rigs in Alaska.

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/caribou-facts.pdf

[Bombtruck]

If it's about the 'environment', it's a bogus argument, because they have been going after oil there for DECADES and Alaska is pretty pristine. Those who claim the environment of a 10 million acre tract of land would be destroyed can't give a concrete answer as to how, so that is more emotional than logical.

There is oil there, an unknown amount(estimates vary depending on who you talk to), and it would be worth the nation's while to explore the 2000 acres that are believed to be sitting on the deposit. Not only that, but we have got to have the ability to explore other areas of the country. You can't find oil if you're not allowed to look, and liberals that say on one hand 'get off foreign oil' then block every effort to do just that have no ground to stand on, and when they say 'alternative sources', they either need to articulate a concrete plan that is workable, or shut up, and stop telling the people of Alaksa what they can and can't do with their land from your lofts in San Fransisco and your Cape Cod's in Massachusettes. Oil makes the World go round currently, so we need to work with that.

With that said:

WTF is with Congressional Republicans?? Good grief, they keep screwing up the freaking obvious!!! If they had to walk across the street to save their lives they'd screw that up. Anyone familiar with my work over at AnkleBitingPundits.com knows I'm a pretty staunch supporter of the Republicans, but damn, I can't even find the words to defend this utter surrender. Steve's right: it's time for a top-to-bottom house cleaning of the Republican party. The party could win on ideas hands down every time, but if the 'leadership's' gonna give in constantly, then it's up to those of us in the party who DO have spines and like using them to conduct a sweep of the premises and clear the rats out NOW!!!

[w. chick]

Hurley, your right. There is absolutely nothing industrialized in the refuge, (note: the word refuge: ref·uge ( P ) n. A place providing protection or shelter.) and it should stay that way. There is however what scientists and the educated call a thriving and vital ecosystem. No matter how well done, the proposed oil development would industrialize a unique, wild area that is the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. Proponents focus on the direct "footprint" where facilities will be built but ignore the secondary and cumulative impacts of the industrial network on wildlife habitats. The impact to wildlife and their tundra habitats extend well beyond the sites of constructed facilities. A study of major landscape impacts due to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in found that secondary effects such as hydrological changes to wetlands lagged behind construction and the total area eventually disturbed greatly exceeded direct impacts. Scientists have recorded decreased caribou densities within 4-km of pipelines and roads and regional changes in calving distribution for the Central Arctic Herd at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay air emissions have been detected nearly 200 miles away in Barrow, Alaska.

Rather than continue to decimate our environment, lining the pockets of big oil, why is it so hard to make the moral and responsible choice to preserve a vital and much needed land refuge and improve the already existing technology to reduce our junkie-like dependency. The consequences of relentless industrialization are being felt all over the world, in the weather, in the irreversible changes to aquatic environments and this plan further cements and endangers our environmental future. Proponents of this plan all know this but in keeping there neo-con forefathers throw out the science, throw out the empirical evidence and must believe like James Watt, that protecting natural resources is unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." These sort of fanatical views got this man fired and hopefully the arrogance of those pushing for this immoral and useless drilling will assist in cementing their downfall as well.

[Bombtruck]

Nice talking points. How about a workable plan there?

[w. chick]

The workable plan is, in actually pursuing with aggression and money, decreasing the need for oil by improving, as I said earlier, already existing technology. It comes by improving efficiency standards and making a demonstrable commitment to relying on these alternatives rather then paying them politically charged lip-service. The workable plan is admitting what is not workable or ultimately useful, i.e. ANWR drilling.

[Jack]

Almost all of the refining capacity of this nation is restricted to a small area of the Gulf Coast, mostly in Texas and Louisiana. No new refineries have been built in over 25 years. The refineries that are operating (some are still down from hurricane damage) are producing at over 95% of capacity. They cannot safely continue at this rate, with no down time for repairs and maintenance.
The above are facts. Congress has refused to permit the one possible change to those facts that might permit some improvement, the building of more refining capacity, away from Houston and New Orleans. Drilling for American oil would perhaps slightly reduce the balance of payments, but it won't put more gasoline in the pumps, or heating oil in the tanks of the homes in the northeast. That will require refineries away from the hurricane belt.
We as voters must do our best to remove the Democrat majority (if it talks like one and votes like one, that (R) after the name is meaningless) or resign ourselves to paying ever higher prices for heat, light, and transportation.

[OldSpook]

Folks, false dichotomy going on here.

Its not Either-Or for drilling vs getting off oil. You do BOTH, and get the Govt out of the way.

The "pollution" andgle is a red herring - environmental impacts are negligible for both ANWR and offshore - we've had rigs inthe gulf for decades. Pulling the oil up and putting it in a pipeline in the US is far less environmentally risky than shipping these big tankers around full of oil.

ANWR and other drilling to find and prove reserves, and start production is the quickest and surest way to alleviate dependence on foreign oil in the short to mid term. It will buy us time to get alternative sources on-line, and affordable and safe. w.chick you are welcome to drive your econo-box tin-can car, but me, I'll keep my family safe in my 4WD here in the mountains. Government has no place dictating fuel economy standards. Let the marketplace decide.

Right now, NONE of the alternative presented here will work short of a government fiat, a command enforced by more government interference with economic choices. You want that, go live in Sweden.

Likewise for drilling. And for many more nuclear plants as the basis for the hydrogen economy (which we desperately need to build - newer designs and use the breeder types to burn their own waste as fuel). And likewise for the distribution system to support such a change.

More economic freedom, less government. THAT is how Republicans are supposed to act - and with courage! And that is precisely what they are NOT doing now due to a lack of said courage.

[Bombtruck]

Ok, what technology specifically is to be used? Solar, nuclear, water, wind, fuel cells? I heard libs be against all of those in one form or fashion. What do we do about replacing the other uses for oil besides powering cars and heating homes?

How about this: build newer, more enviroment-friendly refineries, reduce or eliminate government taxation on all energy sources(costs that get passed to me and you), explore the 2000 acres in ANWAR where this oil is, determine the exact amount once and for all, and if it can replace even 5% of foreign sources, drill for it. There will be tight regulation on the drilling no matter what happens.

Maybe there will be a marketplace for the dream world of no-oil dependence, but for now and the forseeable future oil makes this world work. There isn't a way to cut the tap tomorrow like environmentalists want, and the science of alternative fuel sources is fraught with its own problems that need more work. And no, the development should not be solely funded and dictated by the Government, but let ingenious people and the marketplace find that next great source.

[w. chick]

To say that drilling would have a negligible effect is ludicrous. The effect on the air quality, the ground water, the migratory patterns of dozens of species the furthering of an addiction rather then the in roads to sustainable alternatives.

Conservative estimates say that oil from this refuge, (again, note the meaning of the word refuge), would not be available for at least ten years, possibly even twenty. In that time the strides that could be made if the the political system wasn't handcuffed to big oil in alternative sources could be sweeping and historic. Instead, the proponents of this terrible plan are pathologically obstructionist and invoke their imagined god-given right to gas guzzling, environmentally hazardous vehicles that endanger our environments as well as our dependence on foreign sources. With the proper push to alternative sources, oldspook could get his family home safe and be environmentally responsible. It is not just about getting the oil up it's about forever changing that fragile and vital ecosystem.

It has been said that, "Government has no place dictating fuel economy standards." Well the scent of that crap is overwhelming. When the companies are allowed to charge whatever they want, when supply is a constantly harped upon issue and the Pavlovian bone of those supporting drilling in ANWR, and when we are caught in the middle of a battle with a majority of the worlds oil suppliers, to not have federalized standards of efficiency is grossly irresponsible and certainly puts the materialistic needs of the individual and the financial greed of corporations over the best interest of this country and the world and certainly puts their individual worldly desires and needs over the future of their children their keeping safe in their gas-guzzling vehicles.

[Bombtruck]

I'm sorry, I missed where liberals had the high ground to what is best for everyone.

What IS best for everyone, and who gets to determine that?

What's that you say? It will take time for the ANWAR oil to be explored, drilled, and processed for sale? Well no kidding!!! You don't cook oil in a microwave and dump it into your car. Anyone bringing that up for a reason to NOT drill is reaching.

Sorry, but your arguement is the same old unrealistic utopia stuff that I've heard from insulated and narrow-minded college professors. Oil has a billion-and-one uses outside of fueling cars, and if you manage to block all exploration and drilling as is the liberal environmentalist want, you will be hurting far more than you currently realize.

Stop dealing with myths. Start dealing in reality.

[JFH]

You DO know that your James Watt quote is an urban legend don't you, w. chick?

Your right I DO have my wife drive a gas-guzzling SUV because it keeps my wife and kids safe. I live in a free country that allows me to weigh my purchasing decisions based on short term AND long term costs.

[Damon]

Something to think about here--
we (our generation, our society) is oil dependent. We *have* to have it... it's obvious in the things we have, the things we want and the things we expect... we have cars, computers, shoes - we want more and we expect our government to provide.

Until now, it doesn't seem we minded *how* the government provided us with oil based products and services... perhaps we are running dangerously low on oil resources. perhaps we are screwed. I think if you want to make a difference you should set an example and become what the ideal oil-conscious citizen should be.. ride a horse, make your own shoes, and reduce oil based product use by a significant margin.. (let's say 65%).. i personally don't want to make that sacrifice, and (besides in flat, meaningless words) i don't think anyone else is.. bottom line.. all this oil hubbub is happening because we demand it happen.. democrat or republican, the same oil hungry initiatives would be taking place, and will take place.. and will be pushed forward unless our society (and all world societies for that matter) reduce their oil needs.

If we can convince all governments and societies to accept this, we'll be right as rain. Until then, it (the oil problem) is everyones' fault and responsibility.

[w. chick]

The James Watt quote is debatable, sure. He has refuted that he said it, there are those that will swear till the day they die that he did or something very closely resembling that. It can safely be said that the quote certainly does not betray his belief system. I guess that's the divide. However, it is demostrably apparent that Republican environmental policies reject science at every pass. Making believe that climate change isn't occuring and that our, and the worlds, industrial complex isn't largely responsible for that. To drill in ANWR will doing nothing whatsoever to benefit this countries larger problem, a fact that everyone knows. But reactionary minds make poor decisions. They say, well after years of development, we'll have enough oil for about 7 months. Isn't that great! The problem with the republican argument is it isn't thinking past the month of August on the calendar, when the cold hard bitter truth will hit, that not only have we compromised our environment, we're exactly where we started and most likely then and only then will the proponents feel the harsh cold of September, October, November and December that they forgot exisited.

[Matt Hurley]

Chick: "There is however what scientists and the educated call a thriving and vital ecosystem."

ME: The educated also like to point out that the caribou population EXPLODED after the oil rigs went in up there. One could make the argument that the reason why there is a caribou population at all is because of the oil rigs...your thriving and vital ecosystem was dying before that...

[Matt Hurley]

Another point: "Were the actual amount of oil in ANWR to be no more than 5.7 billion barrels (the low end of the US Geological Survey estimate), the most we could extract would be two million barrels per day because of the pipeline capacity. At that rate, the minimum estimated reserves would last 25 years.

The most probable quantity of ANWR oil is over 10 billion barrels, using today's extraction technology. Now we're talking about a 50-year supply, pumping at maximum capacity."

http://www.anwr.org/features/issues/wilderness-dev.htm

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds like it's worth "disturbing" 0.00007-percent of a 19-million-acre wilderness.

[Matt Hurley]

Chick: "When the companies are allowed to charge whatever they want, when supply is a constantly harped upon issue"

ME: You reveal yourself as a socialist here...which is all fine and good, but realize that we aren't a socialist country and never will be...

[Matt Hurley]

Chick, do you support nuclear energy? Nasty glowy stuff. How about wind farms? It'll kill the birds (and my view!) Coal? Dirty air!

I don't think we're ever going to find a way to make farting into a reliable long-term energy source...

Your exalted science seems not to like the water as a power source idea...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1627425,00.html

...do a search for that guy's name and see how open minded science is...

What do you suggest? You scream for alternative energy, but nothing seems to satisfy your nvironmental concerns or the country's energy needs.

I vote for oil until we can figure it out.