Saxby on with Limbaugh

Chambliss is defending his involvement in the “Gang Of 10,” a group of 5 GOP and 5 Dem. Senators who want to pass a bi-partisan energy plan described here. Rush is upset and apparently Saxby’s taking heat from callers to his office about it.

There’s no doubt about it, most people want us to drill domestically ASAP. Saxby says this bill allows us to do so, but the Wall Street Journal is not complementary to the proposed legislation.


  1. Icarus says:

    I’d much rather have Saxby and Johnny working across the isle to actually try and fix problems, than to have congress do nothing so that talk radio can keep their issues.

  2. Three Jack says:

    does saxby have gang envy since he was left out of the previous one that undercut the gop?

    how about sticking together as a gop ‘gang of 49’ to start drilling now.

  3. Chris says:

    The previous Gang had the foresight to keep the filibuster in place, one of the few saving graces the country has had since the GOP screwed things up and handed governance to the Democrats.

    We should be creating monuments to the Gang of 14.

  4. GOPGrassroots says:

    I received this from the Chambliss folks…

    -Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi want higher gas prices – they want to reduce our usage due to their environmental concerns, and they see higher gas prices as helping the Democrats in November. This is wrong.

    -This is a simple supply and demand issue, and the fastest way to bring down prices is to reduce demand and increase supply. We have domestic resources that are not being used, and so far the Democrats have blocked every attempt to do so.

    -The Democrats are in control and their leadership does not want to increase domestic supply in any form.

    -Since Saxby brought this group together, just the talk of increasing our domestic supply has reduced the price of a barrel of oil by over $30 and we have seen gas prices follow. Increased domestic supply will bring prices down.

    -Saxby brought together a group of 5 Republicans and 5 common sense Democrats to address the Democrat’s stonewalling on increasing domestic supply and to try and find some common ground to move this issue forward. This effort has highlighted just how ridiculous the positions of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi actually are and put the pressure on them to justify their unwillingness to address the problem.

    -Saxby is leading the effort to increase our domestic supply by negotiating with the Democrats and finding common ground – he is not giving up drilling in ANWR (there is not drilling in ANWR and never will be under Democrat leadership) – but it is going to allow for off-shore drilling, which is a major step in the right direction.

    -There is no new tax being placed on oil companies…this legislation closes a tax break that has been in place. In the face of the multi-billion dollar profits, clearly the oil industry does not need a tax break that other industries do not receive. The Democrats have been pushing for their “windfall profits tax”, this is not the right approach.

    -Saxby’s position on drilling in ANWR has not changed, but this is not his focus of the negations. He is moving us in the right direction.

    -This is good common sense policy – good policy is good politics.

    -If Barack Obama wants to change his position yet another issue and get behind this, welcome aboard. It’s obvious that he will say and do anything to get elected, regardless of whether it means completely changing his position on an issue.

  5. “GOP” has become the “Gang Of Perfidiousness.”

    We’ve got a Gang of 10 Senator, a Gang of 14 presumptive POTUS nominee, and a Gang of Kool-aid Drinkers running the GA GOP.


  6. John Konop says:

    Three Jack

    You should read this from the WSJ

    I said this years ago a strong dollar is key ie cut out of control spending!

    The biggest increase in oil is the dollar falling!

    …..The underreported economic news of the week is that Barack Obama favors a stronger dollar. Even better, he thinks a stronger greenback would help to reduce oil prices.

    That at least is what the Democratic Presidential candidate told a town hall forum in Parma, Ohio, on Tuesday. “If we had a strengthening of the dollar, that would help” reduce fuel costs, he said, according to a Reuters dispatch ignored by most of the media.

    This ought to be a bigger story. In linking the dollar to oil prices, Mr. Obama is pointedly at odds with the Bush Administration and Federal Reserve, both of which blame high commodity prices on supply and demand, despite falling demand due to slower global growth. Fed officials — in particular, Vice Chairman Donald Kohn — have expressly rejected any strong link between the dollar’s collapse and the oil price surge since last August.

    This conveniently absolves the Fed and Bush Treasury of responsibility for the consequences of what has been their destructive and all but explicit dollar devaluation strategy. If the Illinois Senator rejects greenback debasement, that’s the best news to date about Obamanomics.

    Reuters also quoted Mr. Obama as saying “The way to strengthen the dollar is for us to get our economy back in shape.” On that point, he has it backward: Strengthening the dollar would help the economy — by making the U.S. a destination for capital, and especially by reducing the inflation in food and energy prices that has pounded the American middle class. Those price hikes may yet tilt the economy into a recession it could otherwise avoid.

    We don’t know who is whispering in Mr. Obama’s ear about the dollar, but he’s on to a rich political vein. Americans know instinctively that something is wrong when the Canadian loonie is worth more than the greenback. Over to you, John McCain…….

  7. MSBassSinger says:

    I wonder if Chambliss and Isaakson have joined the Rockefeller Republican’t side. Sure seems like it.

    I listened to Chambliss on the radio today, after reading the WSJ article, and he danced and misdirected enough to tell me he knows this agreement is a crock.

    What they did fits into the mold of McCain (as in McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang of 14, etc.) perfectly. This is exactly what voters who would consider voting Republican hate – Republican’ts compromising with the liberals such that the liberals get what they want, conservatives get nothing, and the rest of us get shafted. Chambliss, Isaakson, (as well as our Georgia Republican’t legislature) remind me of the clueless Odie being led into trouble by Garfield.

    What voters (who are not diehard Democrats) will vote for are Republicans who stand up for conservative principles and do what is right, not what they think gets favor with the left. I guarantee you the folks leading the charge in the House right now are looked upon more favorably by voters than the Senators’ gang of 10.

    This agreement puts up so many roadblocks to actual drilling that it will never happen. Chambliss and Isaakson can say, truthfully, it opens offshore areas to drilling, but fail to tell you that there are so many obstacles to go through to get there, it will never happen. And the best areas to drill, though not within sight of the shoreline, are off limits.

    There hasn’t been an offshore oil rig spill in about 40 years. They have withstood F5 hurricanes and still didn’t spill.

    Chambliss and Isaakson have betrayed their conservative constituents. If they are now going to govern as Democrats-in-Republican’ts clothing, why not have the real thing so we can hold their party responsible? What is the benefit of having Republican’t Odies doing the Democrat Garfield’s bidding?

  8. Game Fan says:

    It’s a good thing that more conservatives are looking at alternatives, and there’s some promising ideas out there. However, spending billions on this? Seems like more money down the establishment “pipelines” and not so much toward the “inventor-in-the-garage”. If they really wanna help how about a little protection for intellectual property here? And perhaps 24/7 security too. Some of these folks are always getting ripped off and they’re always looking over their shoulders too. And maybe a little of this:

  9. Three Jack says:

    Yes John, we all know you were the only one in the world to understand international economics and the effect devaluation of the dollar would have on oil prices; you are the man! And by all means, be sure to start each post by reminding everyone of your incredible Kreskinesque predictive skills. If you write it often enough, maybe somebody will actually believe your hogwash.

  10. MSBassSinger says:

    > a strong dollar is key
    > ie cut out of control spending
    The key to cutting “out of control spending” is to spend less than you make. For our government, it is to spend only for those things mandated by the Constitution and not on things people can do for themselves, combined with taxing the most productive a lot less.

    > The biggest increase in oil
    > is the dollar falling!
    Not hardly. The biggest increase in oil is the speculative rise in oil futures because the US has blocked significant drilling and building of refineries for 3 decades, and the market expected that would continue (=shrinking supply). The lower value of the dollar is only a small part of the increase in the dollar-per-barrel futures price. And the main reason the dollar has lowered in value recently is because the M3 money supply has increased so much and inflation (real inflation, CPI + food & fuel) has been running 8% and higher.

  11. John Konop says:

    Three Jack

    The truth is I only pointed out basic economics. If you understood the topic at all you would have been upset about out of control spending not campaigning for it!

  12. John Konop says:


    The dollar and oil, in this case, are like a see-saw: when one goes down, the other goes up. However, it isn’t a one-to-one correlation. Example:

    January 21, 2001 _ _ _Yen 117.24:US$1
    January 21, 2001 _ _ _Euro 1.07:US$1
    January 21, 2001 _ _ _Oil US$32.21 / barrel
    January 21, 2001 _ _ _Gold US$265 / ounce

    August 1, 2001 _ _ _Yen 108.0:US$1
    August 1, 2001 _ _ _Euro 0.64:US$1
    August 1, 2001 _ _ _Oil US$125 / barrel (est)
    August 1, 2001 _ _ _ Gold US$914 / ounce

    Percent Change: $ vs. Yen: _ _ -7.9%
    Percent Change: $ vs. Euro: _ _ _- 40.1%
    Percent Change: $ vs. Oil: _ _ -74.2%
    Percent Change: $ vs. Gold: _ _ _-71.0%

  13. John Konop says:

    Another interesting article

    Dollar, oil prices hint of inflation

    Rising energy costs and the declining dollar pose trouble.

    CSM-Two runaway trends – record oil prices and a plunging dollar – are hitting consumers just in time for the biggest retail spending season of the year.

    Americans will be paying more at the gas pump and in their home-heating bills. Meanwhile, a falling dollar means that imported goods are more expensive. That includes all the toys, gadgets, and clothing people buy during the holiday shopping season.

    The dollar is down for several reasons, but all reflect a more negative view of the United States relative to the rest of the global economy. Investors are selling greenbacks because of concern that inflation will rebound, uncertainty about the health of US banks, and a higher risk of recession – plus some longer-term rethinking about where to hold currency reserves.

    What’s going on with oil is partly the flip side of that same financial coin. Since oil is priced globally in dollars, it’s typical for any big markdown in the dollar to be mirrored in a big markup in oil prices. For foreign buyers, that keeps the price of oil fairly stable. But US consumers take that adjustment on the chin.

    “The terms of trade have worsened” for Americans, says Ken Mayland, who heads ClearView Economics, a Cleveland research firm. “The amount that the dollars in our pocket can buy has diminished.”

  14. Game Fan says:

    Lindsey Williams who has said oil would go up to $150 a barrel for a few years now, now says oil is going down to $50 due in part to 2 new oil fields being discovered in Indonesia and north of Russia. If this is true then this fancy new government program is just the latest example of the Neo-cons being a day late and a dollar short. This is just more corporate welfare for their buddies on K Street.

  15. Icarus says:


    Regardless if oil is $150 or $50, do you really want to continue buying 70 percent of it from foreign sources, directly funding those who want to kill us?

  16. MSBassSinger says:

    Icarus, most of that 70% is from Canada and Mexico. Last I heard, they don’t want to kill us.

    That said, we do need to drill offshore and in ANWR, and tell Boone Pickens to take his scam elsewhere.

  17. Icarus says:

    Probably closer to 1/3, but not most, comes from those two countries.

    1. Canada
    2. Saudi Arabia
    3. Mexico
    4. Venezuela
    5. Nigeria
    6. Iraq

    I think the Canadians want to kill us, but they are French at heart, and would just surrender anyway. Saudi is not a country I care to continue to rely on as a stable source. Venezuela is just as bad. Nigeria doesn’t want to kill us, they just want our bank info, and who knows what Iraq will think of us in 5 years.

    Drill Now, Drill Deep, Drill Often.

  18. Game Fan says:

    No offense but I’ve read that one probably 100 or more times over the last few years. “They want to kill us”. Jeez even if you’re joking it seems pretty stale.

  19. Icarus says:

    Sorry if the truth isn’t trendy enough for you GF. Perhaps you’ll like TBoone’s line better.

    “We just paid for both sides of the Iraq war”


    Drilling isn’t the only part of an energy plan, but is a much needed one. I’ve posted quite a bit here about the other things we need to do regarding other solutions that we need. Sending our money away as part of the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world isn’t exactly good for our future generations either.

  20. John Konop says:


    We all get you make your money off the oil industry. At the end of the day that is fine because we live in a capitalist society. But that does not makes us fools for your BS!

    The truth is we need a combination of solution to get off any foreign dependency of oil.

    1) lower consumption
    2) Viable alternatives
    3) Balance budget

    I have a simple common sense solution why not support competitions via SBA style loan guarantee programs that either create an alternative to oil or save on energy.

    This would create jobs and force oil companies to become more competitive.

    If any of you think giving tax breaks and grants to oil companies is how we will lower prices I suggest you see a drug counselor or shrink!

    The job of any CEO is to maximize share holder value bottom line. What incentive would an oil company have to ever lower margin if they do not have to? This is basic 101 opportunity cost economics.

    An oil company would not drill if they thought it would lower margin. They would do it to increase supply and hold it until price is at the peak. This is why much of the oil today in the U.S. is capped. If they flooded the market with supply it would kill the ROI.

  21. MSBassSinger says:

    No John, I don’t work for or in the oil industry. Amazing how libs live in a fantasy world.

    Lower consumption is the way to economic ruin. No society can grow and expand and advance while taking away the means to do that.

    I agree we need viable alternatives – those are nuclear power, drilling for more oil offshore and in ANWR, and building more refineries. In addition, real alternatives that work now, don’t need government subsidies (which is what SBA loans are), are economically and environmentally sustainable, and can compete in the free market are good ideas. Bell Bio-Energy is a good example of that. Their process can manufacture oil, gas, and diesel at substantially less than the current cost (something I know libs hate). Hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, wind, solar, and most of the current biofuels are not economically viable, and some are in fact, environmentally ruinous.

    I agree that a balanced national budget and balanced state budgets are necessary for long term economic stability. Bringing down fuel prices might help that.

    Any good CEO (which many are not) knows to look long term, not short term. Stable energy prices are good for the long term. Besides, oil companies do not set oil, gasoline, or diesel prices. In fact, by drilling more and refining more, they increase supply faster than demand, so those actions would, over time, decrease the price. The oil companies want to drill – they have been pushing for it.

    Oil companies have always made a profit, since the raw cost of materials is always a pass-through cost.

    You really should understand business and how the (somewhat) free market works.

    Come on out of liberal fantasy land, and join us in the sunshine of the informed mind. Really – its great out here!

  22. odinseye2k says:

    Well, we’ve got a couple of things bringing gas prices back down. First, we’ve got the easiest way to increase our supplies – conservation – starting to kick in majorly. Cars are starting to right-size. The downside is that it has been painful to a lot of real families. The foresight of thirty years ago was ignored, and cruel nature showed us yet again that the laws of man cannot ignore the real world.

    And speaking of ignoring the real world, speculation may actually be getting reigned in a little. Feinstein’s “Enron loophole” closure made it harder for traders to hide their moves in market manipulation. It also required the trading houses to have some monitoring of potential situations.

    The speculation may also have gotten hit by a new piece of information: Once prices hit a certain level, we will conserve. That means we’ve got an elastic market after all.

    But damn, I never thought I’d see Boone Pickens written off as some wild-eyed liberal. Y’all can hold on to him, though. Al Gore sees farther and more truly.

  23. odinseye2k says:

    “You really should understand business and how the (somewhat) free market works.”

    The first step is to realize that economic viability is a social construct to a significant degree. The question is how we book-keep the pros and cons.

    For example, coal is economically viable if you don’t take into account several side effects. If you actually had to pay out for the mountains destroyed in West Virginia or the island nations that are being destroyed as the oceans rise, the economic equation would change dramatically.

    You also never know where new activity comes from. For example, Steve Wozniak credits his fortune to the fact that his dad worked at Lockheed Martin and would bring home “trash” chips to play with.

    I do appreciate the extra helping of condescension, though. It’s nice to see from someone that still sees the energy world in the terms of 1980 (and is interested in repeating the great crime that Ronald Reagan committed against this country all those years ago).

  24. MSBassSinger says:

    (Previous attempt at posting this didn’t show – I waited an hour)

    “the island nations that are being destroyed as the oceans rise”
    Name one. The one in Gore’s movie has already been shown to be bogus. There is no ocean level change beyond the normal small changes.

    “Cars are starting to right-size”
    Just what percentage of the cars on the road do you think have changed in the last 4 months? The market worked just fine. When price got to the tipping point, people used less. Coupled with considerably more support in the US for more drilling and more refineries, speculators have less confidence about how high prices will be in the future due to the US not drillign new wells and refining more gas. Thus, prices started down.

    Coal, by the way, is an excellent fuel for power plants. Very little pollution with the current required technology.

    Amazing what the modern day supersititons are.

  25. Game Fan says:

    Big oil is to the private sector and free enterprise/competition what Blackwater is to private security, and what Diebold is to voting. C’mon folks. You’ve been had once again. This is all about neocons/corporate fascists. Get a grip on reality. You’re making us real conservatives look awful.

  26. John Konop says:


    You Said

    “Lower consumption is the way to economic ruin. No society can grow and expand and advance while taking away the means to do that”.

    Is this a joke?

    Do understand if energy prices were lower the money would spent on either consuming other products or savings?

    Do you understand out of control spending you support is driving the dollar in the ground which creates inflation? BTW this was a conservative principal before NEOCONMEN like you took over the GOP.

    Do you understand if consumers buy products that we create in the U.S. or overseas that save on consumption of energy that would create jobs and help the economy?

    As far as understanding business what is your background because it seems rather naive.

  27. John Konop says:


    Do you understand what the minimum ROI target is for investment capital? Do you know how this relates to investment by oil companies via drilling? Do you know how this affects their stock price? Do you know this affects their ability to leverage? Do you know how this affects senior management compensation? Do you know how this affects shareholder value?

    In the real world not in your fantasy world executives face pressure on a quarterly basis. Wall Street make the rules not you blogging on the PP

  28. Game Fan says:

    Of course corporations are expected to maximize shareholder value. And the constituents should be expected to raise hell when things ain’t right, especially when their tax money is being squandered by politicians, lobbyists and corporate C.E.O.s in bed together. They should all get the “brow of suspicion”.

Comments are closed.