Republican Senate nominee Christopher Reed appeared at the Polk County GOP Central Committee meeting last night. Reed was joined by his recent opponent in the GOP primary, George Eichhorn. George graciously spoke of the need for the party to unify around Christopher’s candidacy to defeat incumbent Bahamas Tommy Harkin. George’s graciousness was extraordinary given the photo finish in the GOP primary.
Christopher’s comments were very well received, albeit by a partisan crowd. Christopher sounded many of the usual Republican themes, particularly the need for a Senator who represents Iowa and the United States as opposed to Bahamas Tommy’s zealous advocacy of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. As a former Navy vet,
Christopher focused on Harkin’s thirty years of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, in times of war and peace.
Reed hit his best serve when he started talking about energy. Reed outlined a broad and comprehensive energy plan that begins with drill here, drill now but includes both substantial support for a variety of alternative sources of energy and incentives for appropriate conservation practices. Few politicians in either party are advocating the kind of multi-faceted push for energy independence that Chris Reed is pushing.
Needless to say, Harkin’s immense hypocrisy on energy policy isn’t overlooked by Reed. While Tom Harkin’s concept of energy policy is the political theater that scolding oil executives on national TV provides, and nothing else, his wife sits on Conoco’s Board of Directors, earning a director’s fee of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for her very part time service as a director
Chris ended his presentation with a challenge for Harkin to a series of debates, any time and anywhere, with the first topic being energy independence.. Harkin, being a coward as well as a charlatan will undoubtedly duck any debates, or at least delay any comparison until late in the fall. We’ll be there to cover those debates when and if they happen.
The distinction between Harkin and the old politics of division, distortion and defeat in which he specializes and Christopher Reed's fresh, sincere patriotism is more than clear, it is positively luminous. Christopher is going to clamp on to Harkin like a bulldog. Keep up the good work Christopher.
Christopher’s comments were very well received, albeit by a partisan crowd. Christopher sounded many of the usual Republican themes, particularly the need for a Senator who represents Iowa and the United States as opposed to Bahamas Tommy’s zealous advocacy of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. As a former Navy vet,
Christopher focused on Harkin’s thirty years of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, in times of war and peace.
Reed hit his best serve when he started talking about energy. Reed outlined a broad and comprehensive energy plan that begins with drill here, drill now but includes both substantial support for a variety of alternative sources of energy and incentives for appropriate conservation practices. Few politicians in either party are advocating the kind of multi-faceted push for energy independence that Chris Reed is pushing.
Needless to say, Harkin’s immense hypocrisy on energy policy isn’t overlooked by Reed. While Tom Harkin’s concept of energy policy is the political theater that scolding oil executives on national TV provides, and nothing else, his wife sits on Conoco’s Board of Directors, earning a director’s fee of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for her very part time service as a director
Chris ended his presentation with a challenge for Harkin to a series of debates, any time and anywhere, with the first topic being energy independence.. Harkin, being a coward as well as a charlatan will undoubtedly duck any debates, or at least delay any comparison until late in the fall. We’ll be there to cover those debates when and if they happen.
The distinction between Harkin and the old politics of division, distortion and defeat in which he specializes and Christopher Reed's fresh, sincere patriotism is more than clear, it is positively luminous. Christopher is going to clamp on to Harkin like a bulldog. Keep up the good work Christopher.
38 comments:
Sporer,
Due to your official position with your party, I’m sure you are unable to answer this honestly. But do you really think Reed has a chance? With Obama at the top of our ticket and your party recycling all the tired old attacks, I’m thinking Harkin is pretty safe.
And speaking of energy, why aren’t oil companies drilling on all the domestic lands & areas where they could do it right now? Why do they need more land when they are not even using what they have now?
There you go again rf - inserting logic into a good old party line blather by Ted. (Although it would be refreshing if he gave us an honest handicap of the race)
rf - I find this new logic the libs are using to be very illogical.
Isn't your deal that there is NO DRILLING NO WAY!
Why do you pull this red herring out that says it's ok to drill in the mainland of the United States on those now famous leased lands, but you say NO WAY to a frozen, uninhabited tundra in far northern alaska or next door to where China is already drilling out in the ocean, again where no people are located.
Did you know that not ONE oil rig, not ONE oil tanker, not ONE offshore Oil anything spilled any oil during all those hurricanes?
What is your problem with clean drilling? The 70's are long gone. You guys keep using the same old paradigms that just aren't true anymore.
Oil is a renewable energy source.
so rf - what do you think is the diabolical reasons that the big bad oil companies have for not drilling in already leased lands? Do you know?
Have they reconvened the vast right wing conspiracy for some unknown reason?
What you are saying is "drill here drill now" aren't you?
so rf - how do you feel about the libs new proposal to steal the oil from Iraq for 100 years? How do you feel about your party wishing for oil to be the spoils of war when you kept accusing Bush of using that as the reason he went to war?
I guess you guys were wrong about that.
so rf - are we allowed to use Nuclear energy? or is that off limits too?
What is the plan? Here's what I've heard so far from Oby
1)tax our way out of it
2)quit driving our cars
3)give algore money for his fake hedge fund
4)invent some yet unknown source of alternative energy
I wonder how long number 4 would take to get to market - 10 years at least??? That's just too long to be useful. I mean, 10 years after all. You might as well give up on that - 10 years is too long. as your party keeps saying.
RF SAYS:
And speaking of energy, why aren’t oil companies drilling on all the domestic lands & areas where they could do it right now?
WHICH IS RF's WAY OF SAYING:
Drill here, drill now - dammit!
We luv you RF - just kidding around with ya.
The only drilling the Democrats are for is for a guy to stick it up another guys ass.
So to say that the Democrats are against drilling is wrong.
rf:
You may have already seen this pdf but if not check out this link:
http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf
Meanwhile sporie, I'm so excited!! How do I vote for Christopher? He sounds like the best thing since sliced bread.
I sense that you have been BSing us though. You're no lawyer, you're an adman.
Thanks, Art. I heard a US senate staffer just yesterday refer to these same facts.
The anon who likes to mess with me is right. Why are the oil companies not drilling in the areas where they can while asking for more areas to be available to them? It’s a good question. I understand R’s like to ignore these facts for political gain. I don’t know why oil companies do it. Maybe they should send the lobbyists and ad folks they hire to drilling rigs to do something productive.
Anon is also right that my comment may be interpreted as a “drill here drill now” statement. I’m ok with domestic drilling if it replaces foreign oil. The energy independence angle is always good. But, since I believe in the science of climate change, I think we should not be utilizing our limited resources to drill more and more and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. I just don’t think that is wise. My opposition to increased use and drilling of oil is based on that, not the cleanliness of drilling activities. We (govt, energy industry & others) should be using our resources to develop low and no-carbon energy options. What that means is new good jobs for our country and a better future for our precious planet.
Feisty Anon (I love feisty, BTW),
On the Obama energy plan, I’m afraid you are coming up with a very liberal interpretation of it. For the actual plan, see http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
On nuclear, my personal take is that if you are serious about climate change, you cannot take that option off the table. But, considering that not a single nuclear power plant will be built in this country without a huge government subsidy in the form of financial liability protection, it is not an easy option. And we need to find a solution to the waste issue. – Nobody is saying these are easy or simple issues.
The democrats are making a great big deal out of their convention being green. Good idea!
Oh...only democrats are allowed to be green. I guess they aren't uniters after all. The taliban wing of the democrat party would rather simply behead us, wouldn't they?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121434145793701111.html?mod=blog
...But it's almost inevitable that principles, politics and profit will conflict.
To wit: Coors Brewing Co., in Golden, Colo., will donate biofuel made from beer waste to power the convention's fleet of flex-fuel vehicles.
A green star for the convention -- but it has rankled die-hard liberals, who boycotted Coors in the 1960s and '70s...
Heirs to the Coors fortune have long been active in conservative causes and Republican politics.
Convention officials say Coors is a good corporate citizen. And a Coors spokeswoman says the donation was a gesture of civic pride, not politics.
No matter, grumbles Anna Flynn, a longtime union member from Denver who objected to the donation. "Any way you put it, it's still Coors," she says.
But, since I believe in the science of climate change,
Would that be the same "science" that proves Darwin created earth?
Would that be the same "science" that says a fetus is not really a human being?
There isn't any proven "science" on this. There are theories and opinions. The British version of the Supreme Court ruled on that. Did you see that bit of news a while back? At best, the jury is still out on the subject of the "science" of it all.
It's just Algores hysteria that is really his marketing plan for his bogus hedge fund. Did you buy any shares yet?
RF SAID
"We (govt, energy industry & others) should be using our resources to develop low and no-carbon energy options. What that means is new good jobs for our country and a better future for our precious planet."
RF- I appreciate what you are saying, it sure sounds utopic.
But, is there any such thing as no carbon energy options or is that still in the research phase?
When will we be able to use it to replace oil? Within 10 years?
If OIL can be drilled CLEAN and used CLEAN - what is your problem???
You are just plain ole locked in the 70's.
"The only drilling the Democrats are for is for a guy to stick it up another guys ass.
So to say that the Democrats are against drilling is wrong."
I think you're confusing Democrats with the Log Cabin Republicans.
To read more about why the liberals are wrong on energy and see a crazy video about the real agenda of the libs in Congress, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, visit http://www.conservative.org/ACUCOMECLEAN.html
Contrary to common mythology, Carter was far from a lonely voice calling for strenuous action.
After the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, both of his predecessors, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, called energy the nation's top priority and set an ambitious goal for "energy independence" (eliminating reliance on foreign oil by 1980, no less).
Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.
He (CARTER) offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be cost-effective.
Meantime, the solar energy industry is hopeful - not because of anything that occurred in the White House after Carter, but because the 2005 energy bill, signed by Bush, will give up to $2,000 in tax credits for anyone installing solar energy in a home.
The credits begin next January, although they will be available for only two years unless Congress extends them.
Yet solid data exist on what happened after the free market- loving Reagan chopped Carter's programs to shreds.
Oil prices dropped and stayed relatively stabile for two decades. Motorists were thrilled.
Oil prices plunged in the early ’80s after the Iranian crisis ended; after a worldwide recession sapped productivity (a less productive economy uses less fuel); and — especially — after Reagan eliminated price controls.
The controls, limiting how high the cost of fossil fuel could go, had been in place since Richard Nixon used them in an effort to rein in inflation and dampen consumer prices during the Arab oil embargo.
Carter started to eliminate them but never finished.
While the controls kept a lid on prices, they also prevented oil companies from earning enough to make them want to reinvest in more exploration and production.
“When there’s a shortage of supply and you put in price controls, it makes the matter worse because it decreases incentives to produce more,” Hakes said.
Soon prices began reflecting the laws of supply and demand.
World affairs, be they labor strife in Venezuela, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait or the threat of higher prices from Middle Eastern countries, could drive prices higher.
But renewed drilling in Texas, the new pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope, good relations with foreign producers like Saudi Arabia and occasional siphoning of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a Ford administration invention created for emergencies) tempered most crises.
In fact, the price of petroleum got so low at one point, after the Saudis flooded the market in 1986, that some Texas oilmen went broke.
Home heating oil and natural gas prices followed similar patterns. And with inexpensive and seemingly abundant energy, who needed solar?
It was cheaper and more reliable to power a home with electricity from the local utility than to gamble that a $20,000 investment in solar panels might eventually pay off.
After the original Congressional mandate of 27.5 mpg took effect in 1985, the Reagan Administration rolled the standard back to 26 mpg in 1986.
Finally in 1989 the first Bush Administration moved the standard back to the 1985 level of 27.5 mpg.
There was no improvement in the CAFE standards under the Clinton Administration.
I cant really say my name, but Im a volunteer for the Iowa Republican Party.
Unless there is a miracle, Chris Reed will fall short of Tom Harkin, Reed is a wonderful candidate and a great conservative, but this is a proving ground for him. If he can lose by a closer margin than Harkin's last opposers than Reed's career track will be set on a collision course with any number of Republican held posts. Gretchen Lawywer (unless Im mistaken) is looking to be his new State Rep, and Swati Dakender his new State Senator, not to mention there will be a senatorial seat, a congressional seat (2) and the Gubernatorial race to look at.
Chris Reed will have his pick of the litter, and despite his dim chances Reed is the future of the Iowa Republican Party and we need to get behind him!
rf-the drilling on existing acreage is a red hering. two reasons.
the first is that damn reality that so often interferes with liberal argument (but not emotional committment to a position). whatever oil is on existing acreage cannot be extracted with the same cost efficiency as can oil in the Carib (where the Chinese are already drilling) and the wastelands of ANWR.
second, as the feisty anon indicates, it is less environmentally sensitive, to drill down in the continental US than it is to drill ANWR and the Carib. Why trash the environment where we live, if indeed, modern drilling and refining, are environmentally dangerous, which seems to be the objection to drilling next to the Chinese off the Florida coast.
i will, however, give you this. i don't have a lot of problems with energy companies having to trade existing leases for new leases. maybe create some financial incentives for newer start up companies to explore and drill the land the older and more established companies have to swap. and, if there is indeed no feasible ability to drill then let's find another use for the land.
finally, no one has clean hands on this than W, who has done more than all of his predecessors to try and create energy independence.
Looks like my anon friend needs a lesson in very basic, undisputable science. When you burn oil, you create CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thus, if you think climate change is a problem, burning oil is not “clean.”
Even if you don’t believe in climate change, the rest of the world is buying the “theory.” Why should we not follow suit, become leaders in green technology, and sell those technologies to the world? Tons of cash involved when the world re-energizes with new technology. We in the good ol’ US are the best when it comes to innovation and selling it for profit. Nothing utopian about that.
Re: carbon-free energy. For producing electricity, we already have carbon-free options: wind, solar PV, solar thermal.
Completely carbon-free options for transportation fuels, like hydrogen, may still be years away. I’ll give you that. But low-carbon options, such as cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel from algae, could be in the market in the next couple of years. When you combine these new technologies with serious efficiency push, we are well on our way. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw a report on TV about a real, existing vehicle that gets 300 mpg. Coast-coast on 10 gallons, or something like that. This is technology we have now. With a can-do attitude (surprisingly lacking from many R’s when it comes to energy issues) and serious effort, we can surely solve these problems and don’t have to try to find the last drop of oil inside Mother Earth’s crust.
rf, i pretty much agree on all of those.
we need to attack energy independence on a multiple fronts, long term and short term.
next to killing off the bad guys, which are islamofacists in today's world for the most part, nothing our government does has a greater or better claim to the public dollar than breaking what W called was an addiction to oil.
the amazing thing, as rf accurately argues, is there are so many ways that we could create very profitable new technologies and businesses from newe energy tech, as the very beneficial economic effects of ethanol technology on the corn industry demonstrates.
Sporer,
I'm not surprised we agree on much of the new energy stuff. To McCain's credit, he gets it too. W does deserve some credit, but he could have done much, much more. Plus, don't you remember that during the 2000 campaign he was for regulating greenhouse gases?
On the drilling issue, I don't believe facts support your red herring statement. It is my understanding that much of the land that is currently available is in the Alaskan tundra very similar to ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. Plus, at $135 per barrel, it should be economically defensible to go for areas that may not be most optimal. Especially when the path to the supposedly most optimal land is a 10-20 year legislative battle that you have no guarantee of winning.
McCain will probably be too much of a drag on the ticket. It depends on whether or not the Barr supporters vote Republican further down on the ticket.
irp staffer,
You mention the Dems for the state house and senate races and not the R's. Are you giving them those wins in Nov?
The State House is our only chance for pickup and we have to keep the Senate above 17!
R's have to get behind ALL of their candidates this year not just Reed!
We can't live with 20% spending increases every two years!
Why ANYONE would ever even consider voting for any Democrat is beyond me. If they do, they must love these energy prices because Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure the prices continue to increase.
Democrats are doing everything within their power to prevent new supplies. Their so-called "energy" plan sucks. They have NO energy plan except walk and wear a sweater.
After seeing what the Republicans have done to the country I'll bet at least 60% of the population is ready to give the Dems a chance. Better to pay a little more and get into some alternative energy sources than continue sucking off a bunch of Saudi princes.
I too think Bush is bending over to the saudis.
When Clinton left office gas was 1.60, after 8 years of Bush its 4.00
I'll take my chances with Obama and the democrats
Post a Comment