Nancy Pelosi is wagging the dog.
Nancy Pelosi has been blocking an energy bill from coming to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote on opening off shore oil drilling. It has been reported that there is significant bipartisan support for the bill. Passing this bill would provide some immediate relief from the high gas prices at the pump. The long term benefits would lower gas prices even further and greatly reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The passage of the bill would also help save a lot of jobs that are now being lost as a result of the high gas prices. All good.
There are only two reasons Speaker Pelosi has been able to articulate for single handedly denying a vote on the energy bill: 1) She will not allow President Bush to have his way. 2) She cannot go back and face her constituency in San Francisco if she allowed the vote.
If I understand her first reason correctly Nancy Pelosi is so blinded by rage from her hatred of President Bush she is willing to let the entire country continue to struggle financially because of the high gas prices in order to stick it to Bush.
The second reason she gave also demonstrates her short sightedness. Last week I came across a poll conducted by the Sacramento Business Journal which showed that 66% of the people support off-shore oil drilling to 31% that don’t, with 2% undecided. This is in line with other national polls. I thought it would be important for the speaker to see this, so I logged onto her web site and e-mailed it to her. I received, what I consider, a strange response and one that surprised me. Since I do not live in California’s eight district (Pelosi’s district) I am not one her constituency and therefore, Nancy Pelosi is not interested in my opinion.
As an elected representative of her district she can and should vote the will of her constituency. However, as Speaker of the House, we are all her constituency and her obligation is to serve the entire nation not just her district. It should not be a case of how San Francisco goes so does the nation. That is nothing more than wagging the dog.
|
Change Location:
|
Just because the polls say the majority want it does not make it right. The respondents are only thinking self-gratification and are responding without fully understanding the issue. Besides, it would take years to build the platforms, siphon the oil from the earth, and process it. The answer lies in conservation and technology! Providing more 'cheap' gas would not generate conservation or R & D into new, clean energy. It will only prolong the inevitable.
could you have found a creepier picture to use? I'm not a Pelosi fan, but come on.
We import most of our oil because it is cheaper than generating our own. This is why all the leases oil companies already possess have not been utilized. If they were to start drilling, it would be a long time before we would see much effect to our cost at the pump, and I wouldn't count on them not selling it outside the US anyway. The only real solution is to suck it up, start changing your lifestyle and find ways to use less gas, and demand incentives and exploration of alternatives. Oil will always be in our lives, but to what degree can be a personal choice in a number of ways. If you are looking for real relief, you will need to change your habits and purchases. People have had numerous opportunities to develop these alternatives, it's not like this is the first time this type of "crisis" has occurred. But instead everyone was content to go back to their consuming ways as soon as the prices went back down. That's all anyone really wants to do this time too. They say yes yes yes to big gas guzzling vehicles, and sprawl, and then don't want to deal with the consequences of their lack of forethought. Try using some this time around.
That picture of Pelosi reminds me of a guy I saw in the Denver airport. Cute flower print dress, but the hairy arms, the shoulders and the face were a dead give-away.
Ahhh, another piggy comment from rat_stink. joemiko: First of all, "wagging the dog" means to put up a diversion to take attention away from something else. I guess you probably figured that if it worked as an attack phrase against Bill Clinton, it'll work against Rep. Pelosi. Kinda dumb. Secondly, where did you get these "reasons" that you attribute to her? Did she state these "reasons". I didn't think so....