Saxby and T. Boone Pickens

Saxby has signed on to the Pickens scam Plan. My question is whether that is consistent with his energy compromise position. I honestly don’t know if they are compatible or consistent.

20 comments

  1. odinseye2k says:

    Well, I’m glad someone has called out Pickens’ plan for the rent-seeking, water-hoarding con job that it is.

  2. Ga Values says:

    AS usuall with Saxby Chambliss(Socialist/RINO,Ga) follow the money. Check out those LOBBYIST Donations. McCain says Country First, Saxby says LOBBYIST FIRST. Vote Conservative Vote Buckley..

  3. umustbekidding says:

    Yep, Vote Buckley.
    I will vote for every Libertarian on the ticket.
    (outside of the president because that one is too close and too important)

  4. Buddha the Magnificent says:

    Gang of Ten? Wall Street Bailout?? Now Chambliss signs on with T. Boone’s loopy plan???

    Bye-bye, Saxby.

    And we’ll send Isaakson to join you in retirement in a couple of years

  5. GeorgiaValues says:

    They are absolutely compatible and consistent. The entire reason Saxby brought 20 Senators together was to move us towards Energy Independence…

    T. Boone Pickens’ Energy Independence Pledge:

    We will no longer stand by and watch as America’s national security and economy become more dependent on the unstable foreign nations that we rely on for nearly 70% of the oil we use each day.

    We spend nearly $700 billion every year buying foreign oil, which represents the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

    The new President and the 111th Congress need to enact an energy plan that reduces our foreign oil dependence by at least 30% within ten years.

    This plan must include proven American technology and resources; the development of new energy sources; and the expansion and modernization of the national electrical grid to transport renewable energy to homes and businesses. Delaying any further means tacit support for continuing America’s addiction to foreign oil.

    I join with T. Boone Pickens and his army of supporters in calling for an Energy
    Independence Plan to be enacted within the first 100 days of the new administration.

  6. Ga Values says:

    WSJ on SAXBY”S GANG OF TRAITORS…t old Boone made a big contribution to Saxby. As always with Saxby follow the money, Saxby don’t work for free.

    Republican Energy Fumble
    August 8, 2008; Page A13
    Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election.

    It’s taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found — in energy — an issue that’s working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer’s headlines.

    AP
    Members of the “Gang of 10” discuss their energy plan, Aug. 1.
    Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

    Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson — alongside five Senate Democrats. This “Gang of 10” announced a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break Washington’s energy “stalemate.” What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

    That’s because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast — putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska’s oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

    The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn’t have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

    Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang’s bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the bill. But he’s only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang’s efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf.

    Equally gleeful was Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production — a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with “five Republicans” to “lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home.”

    Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn’t more enthusiastic about a “bipartisan” effort on energy, especially one that includes “drilling.” His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn’t sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain’s good friend Lindsey Graham considers “helping,” somebody might want to ask him to stop.

    And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

    In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer “Big Oil Bob” — hoping to smear his oil industry career. “Big Oil Bob” has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall’s lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP’s most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they’re fighting on the merits.

    The “bipartisan” Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They’ve even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s face. He’d been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He’s now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue “negotiations” straight through the Senate’s short September session and solve his problem for him.

    Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That’s the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

    Write to [email protected]

  7. Icarus, read the plan. All of you who are against the Picken’s Plan, are you FOR more foreign oil and keeping our system and economy dependant on a cartel?

    What’s your alternative and how does that differ from Pickens’ ideas?

  8. Icarus says:

    CNFPP Sheppie,

    It’s been on my to-do list, just not a priority. Energy Independence is my #1 political priority right now. It’s both a national security and an economic security must.

    I support the overall goal of the pickens plan, have no problem with a large windfarm in the middle of the country. My understanding is that he doesn’t talk about nuclear power much, and that has to be part of whatever plan we go with.

    I’m not crazy about switching cars to CNG. Busses and government vehicles are a good fit. The engineering for consumer vehicles will take 5 years if they start now, as only 1 manufacturer (Honda) has a single vehicle available to the public. If you assume a 5 year product development, and a 5 year phase in a people replace their cars, we’re 10 years down the road for a step he considers transition.

    I think we skip this step by allowing diesel cars that meet euro emissions criteria legal for sale in all 50 states. Two members of California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) are very anti-diesel, and every time manufacturers meet their standards for diesel, they raise them.

    Europeans aren’t buying hybrids. They don’t understand why they would buy something so complex with a shelf life of 100,000 miles when they can get the same or better performance from a diesel that will last 300,000 miles.

    Every major manufacturer could have diesel cars available for sale here in 18 months or less if we adopted euro diesel emission standards. (or more specifically, if we forced California to adopt them). They are cleaner than US regs, and would allow cars to achieve 30% greater fuel efficiency overnight.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    I do not want to get started on the failings and expense of wind power, but if Pickens wanted to strengthen our national security, he would be pushing nuclear and coal liquefaction.

    Instead of converting every car in the country to run on CNG and gasoline, it would make more sense to just commercialize the various laboratory processes that can convert natural gas into gasoline, which is another option.

    There is a reason why liquid petroleum fuels have been the fuels of choice for transportation for the last 100 years. Nothing, absolutely nothing has the energy density, ease of transportation, safety, and efficiency of these fuels. One day, other technologies may surpass petroleum based fuels, but it will not be any time soon.

    For stationary power, however, petroleum is a horrible option, and would be best served with nuke plants.

  10. Game Fan says:

    Like coal liquefaction. But I’ve made the bold statement before: Lets get the government completely out of energy production. Not that it’s gonna happen though. Not like the market would dry up either, just doesn’t pay as much for the political class, and the big players who invest billions in politicians.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    Game Fan, I agree.

    What stops most of these ideas is that the more dubious a plan is, the more subsidy it gets which keeps money out of the hands of the ones that actually have a workable non-subsidized future.

  12. Bill Simon says:

    Georgia Values,

    You stated the following: “We spend nearly $700 billion every year buying foreign oil, which represents the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.”

    Why is Saxby so concerned with us buying foregn oil…especially when he had NO problem agreeing to us paying to bailout foreign banks as this Section in that “bailout bill” he voted in favor of contains:

    SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES AND CENTRAL BANKS.

    The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under Section 101.

Comments are closed.