The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Noel Sheppard over at NewsBusters has a transcript up of Nancy Pelosi on George Steppinalloverus', err, mean Stephanopoulos, show "This Week" this past Sunday.

Reading the transcript, it becomes very apparent that Rep Pelosi has truly lost all connection to reality. Even despite asking the "Why won't you allow an up or down vote?" question numerous times, she continued to spew her illogical mislogic. Let me show you a few items:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days.

Now, what she is referring to is the oil that is stored in the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is oil that is stored for NATIONAL EMERGENCIES like times of war or oil embargos. To allow her to drain the oil out of the National Reserve in order to just have her show that she cares for the little people now would be tantamount to treason. Allowing her to drain away our nation's backup oil supply DURING A WAR on terror would be similar in my opinion to giving away state's secrets to our enemies.

What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it.

That's "something". Care to share in the comments section what the heck she is talking about here? What does she mean by "single shoot"? Is she thinking that this is the only plan the GOP has to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of oil? Far be it Senator. This would only be the start. Or at least should be. Open up ANWR. Open up the coastlines. Open up the federal lands that were taken away from mining and drilling by Pres. Clinton. Open up the areas of the gulf for methane extraction and areas for oil shale and oil sands development. And then ALLOW the construction of nuclear, solar and wind generation facilities. I would then demand the end to the subsidization of oil companies.

But I digress...

Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas.

Please explain, Rep Pelosi, what is failed about the energy policy that was voted and approved by both the Senate and the House? And, please explain the linkage with the President and Vice-President and the pricing of oil? And you know what, if the oil was not $4 a gallon, then the oil companies would probably not be making record profits. So, shouldn't you be doing what you can to open up the supply of oil in order to decrease the cost of gas? And, here I agree with her that oil companies should not be subsidized by the government. Especially now that they have made record profits. In fact, no business should be subsidized by the government. And yet, we spend billions of dollars doing just that. But then she loses me when she actually calls for the oil companies to use those oil subsidies to drill in protected areas. huh? So, she was against it before she is for it?

Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they're permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.

See. Here is where she shows that she has lost all of her mental faculties. Seriously. She actually believes that having oil placed into the National Reserve will lead to its loss. And I am tired of this old argument that the oil companies have all this lease area that they are not drilling in right now, so why should they be allowed to lease other areas? Well, for one it is a matter of cost. Two it is a matter of having access to a greater source from one location. Many lease areas have their oil and coal spread out and is more difficult to access.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?

PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.

Third time she was asked, and for the third time she throws up her Hail Mary.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?

PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle.

Fourth time she is asked about allowing a vote and now she ............ well... what can i say. Call the people with the White Coats!!! Is she really seeing a Walt Disney movie in her head?

She even got to the point of losing Stephanopoulos on her next statements.

Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say?

I still can't see how one can save the planet while growing the economy. How can you squash free access to energy and resources and then say that that will grow the economy? Just think about what happened to our country and our economy when easy access to oil was discovered. What happened to our economy after the World Wars when our nations oil was once again allowed to flow into the market instead of the military?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on --

PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.

Now she can't even formulate complete sentences! So, she is opposed to subsidizing the oil companies but is all for subsidizing "renewable energy sources"? Why should America subsidize timber companies? Why should we subsidize hydroelectric dams? These are "renewable" energy sources, right? And by the way, increasing solar, water and biofuels will not increase the supply of energy in this country in a measurable way. Why? Because so much of our energy is from oil, coal and nuclear. While some areas are reliant upon hydroelectric energy, she and her ilk are trying to remove those dams in order to save fish. I seriously doubt that she would be willing to increase the number of hydroelectric dams.

And just because you have talked about something does not mean it will come in to existence. What, does she think she is God?

And now, she has lost her entire grip on reality....

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.

PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter.

She really believes that talking about something will cause physical changes. Having a consensus will reduce the price of gas? It is her policy to only talk about things and hope things change.

Stephanopoulos asks her again about the vote.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?

PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote.

ummmm. Is she living in Never-Never Land or something? OMG!!

And then to sum it all up, she goes completely, wholly, fully right off the deep end of reality. And Stephanopoulos even has to ask her the vote question again...

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.

PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them --

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming.

I wonder if she is suffering from Alzheimers or is doing brain-altering drugs. Seriously. She spent the whole interview saying she will not allow a vote, then denies it. She states that she wants to prevent the access to domestic supplies of oil, but then she wants to reduce foreign oil dependence. She wants to grow the economy, but then reverse global warming.

I would like to know how she is going to put up that giant sun shade in space? But then for her, that has already been done since she spoke about it. Use it, don't lose it.

One more time..

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

HUH????

Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard...

So, umm, uhh.. allowing drilling in areas that they don't drill in now will change the electricity standard? Are we going to go to Martian standard of electricity generation if the oil companies start drilling in other areas of ANWR?!?!?

WOW!!

UPDATE: A commenter at NewsBusters points readers to this article that highlights that even though Sen Pelosi wants to release 700 million barrels of oil in to our market, the greens are actively working to prevent its production into gasoline.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough.

Meanwhile, in California, green groups are working through the state attorney general’s office to block the upgrade of the Chevron refinery in the city of Richmond. The $800 million upgrade essentially would expand the useable oil supply by permitting the refinery to process lower-quality, less-expensive crude oil.

  Environmentalism

---

Comments: