In 2001, when the Democratic governor of California first got wind that someone (Enron) was gaming his state's electricity and natural gas market, he put in an urgent request to the newly-installed Bush/Cheney/Rove administration, asking them to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission check it out. Months passed. Nothing was done. Millions of Californian utility rate payers saw their utility bills double and even triple. They got stuck with close to ten billion in inflated energy costs. Enron made a killing. Then later Enron went bust. Enron employees lost their jobs and stockholders lost billions.
Now, fast-forward to Hurricane Katrina. The Democratic governor of Louisiana puts in a formal request for emergency federal assistance 48 hours before Katrina makes landfall, FEMA sets up shop in Baton Rouge, and begins coordinating and mobilizing federal disaster relief. Just a typical hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast. No problem. Then the levees in New Orleans break, the city is inundated by floodwaters, many people are stranded on their rooftops, casualties mount, and the Democratic Louisiana governor's requests for federal emergency assistance become more frantic. People are dying. Immediate help is required from our federal government, from the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration. Days pass. People die. There's a dearth of federal emergency disaster relief getting to the dying in New Orleans.
Oh, right, Karl Rove politicized it...just like he did in California as Enron ravaged that state's energy markets like a Category 5 hurricane.
In Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina, though, the goal of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration was not only to embarrass the Democratic governor (a coordinated right-wing smear campaign was waged against her), but this foul Republican administration also used federal emergency disaster relief (or the withholding thereof) in an attempt to blackmail the Democratic Louisiana governor into handing over to Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld control of her state's national guard units. I added Rumsfeld because he had to have been aware of this murderous, evil scheme, too. As was probably Chertoff. (Oddly, this demand that a state hand over control of its national guard units didn't get made to the Republican governors in Alabama and Mississippi, states also devastated by Katrina. And about a year later, coincidentally enough, Bush signed Republican-sponsored legislation giving him control over any state's national guard units during an emergency, as declared by him and defined by him).
But this murderous Republican political ploy during Katrina didn't stop with just their withholding federal aid from the Louisiana and New Orleans disaster zones, leaving many U.S. citizens to die, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, without help from their federal government. The other half of this nefarious Republican blackmail scheme involved the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Chertoff administration trying to keep any assistance from reaching the dying in New Orleans during those first deadly days after the city flooded.
In other words, Scott McClellan was entirely correct when he observed in his memoir that, for all the pre-2000 election's Bush/Cheney rhetoric about uniting, not dividing, about representing all U.S. citizens, and bringing "civility" into the White House, the Bush/Cheney administration that entered office in January 2001 turned into a rabid, partisan beast, gluttonous and devouring, with the sole goal of rewarding only Republicans and punishing all Democrats.
And California (Enron) and Louisiana (Katrina) are Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2...in hopefully any future trial of these criminal Republican thugs who've harmed so many people and done so much damage to our democracy. "And Jesus wept."
Posted by The Oracle at June 18, 2008 02:49 AMdon't forget the limbaugh dittoheads touting the folks (white) in ia while dispariging the same who died, were unable to leave, or "shot at helicopters," in new orleans, my home city. not to mention, the millions (billions?) in wasted money to those crooked contractors with ties to this foul, craven administration.
Posted by anthony at June 18, 2008 05:35 AMWhat a reach Oracle, but, please note your Enron reference had the company up to it's evil deeds before Bush took office. Bush didn't cause Enron...Clinton did. He created the atmosphere that allowed Enron to florish. Attitudes within departments don't change overnight, and career staff will keep doing what they've done until the new admin's drills down to effect them. And Californians weren't served well by their legislature not permitting more construction of power plants...relying on "out of state" electricity.
Drill here, Drill now, Pay less.
Posted by peter at June 18, 2008 06:01 AMIs this the same drill for oil request that the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter tried to ram through congress, over and over again, only to be rejected every time?
You'd think that some brain dead dry drunks would learn the first few hundred times somebody tells them to stuff it. Then again, if that were the case, Republican't peter fluffers wouldn't still be trying to blame the Eeeeeeevul Clenis for all of the clusterCheneys that the current junta have gotten us into...
Posted by (: Tom :) at June 18, 2008 07:22 AMThe Enron situation was promoted by legislation crafted by Phil Gramm--McCain's principal economic advisor--passed by a Republican Congress, and, yes, signed into law by Clinton. Anyone who thinks that 'lease, lease, lease' and "drill, drill, drill" will affect current gasoline prices had better look at what these practices have done to create energy independence over the past thirty years: nill, zilch,not.
Posted by jackalope at June 18, 2008 07:31 AMWith Clinton not vetoing ANWR in 1995, we would be benefitting now from the results. Barry Obama's comment about not seeing anything for five years is a little shortsited. Leaders must have a vision way beyond five years.
Drill here(buy American), Drill now(can't play if you don't participate), Pay less($9.50 a gal in the near future like many in the EU). Democrats are the "no" machine. Always a 'no' on US oil and complain when the price goes up. Democrats want to keep the poor poor, they want all of us to depend on them for our daily bread.
Posted by peter at June 18, 2008 08:02 AMMary: It's the Chinese and Indian demand....just ask Muck and petey....nothing to do with lax regulations or greed...how silly...right petey?...Clinton caused Enron....next time you soak you head...add a little brine.
Posted by Goyo at June 18, 2008 08:54 AMMary:
I think Democrats are going to be on the losing end if they oppose drilling suggested by Bush. The majority of Americans believe that such act will lower prices at the pump. This is going to be a plus issue for Republicans in the next election. The Republican argument would be that we will try all other approaches such as alternate energy sources but what is wrong in also drilling at the same time to provide some immediate relief?
One argument that I have not heard from Democrats is that Europeons have been drilling offshore for oil for several years. However, the gas prices in Europe are even higher than in US.
Posted by suresh at June 18, 2008 09:17 AMI understand that oil companies are currently sitting on hundreds of unused licenses to drill that they are not using. This is a political ploy and needs to be called out as such.
Oh, and for about the 10,000th time: the oil in ANWR has too high a sulfur content to be useful to us, well, unless you like yellow smog.
Posted by ann at June 18, 2008 09:42 AMDemocrats are the "no" machine.
That must be why they're setting records for the most filibusters in a single congressional session.
What's that? It's the Republican'ts who are saying no more than any other set of congressional politicians from a political party in the history of america? Why would someone characterize the Democratic party as the party of 'no', when it's the Republican'ts who are the ones saying no more than any other bunch of politicians in, like, ever?
Could it be that an amoral hypocritical Republican't Putsch fluffer is trying to catapult some more propaganda? Sorry - no one believes your kimchee any more...
Posted by (: Tom :) at June 18, 2008 10:29 AMSo tell me Tom, what measure Republicans said "can't" on that would provide more gas at the pump at a lower price? When have Democrats said 'yes' on oil exploration and production? Got any ideas Tom? Clinton vetoed ANWR in 1995, said we wouldn't see anything for years...well it years now...wouldn't it be nice to have more American crude today?
The EU taxes the hell out of their petro suresh. We're talking more than half the price. Ann, they have the licenses, just not the permits...approvals to drill.
Tom...it figures; capital 'D' for Democrat, small "a" for America.
Drill here(buy American), Drill now, Pay less.
Posted by peter at June 18, 2008 12:15 PMI'm agreeable to drilling, but... Bush says there are 10 billion barrels in ANWR. At current prices, that's $1.3 trillion of taxpayer assets. Who believes that this administration will fairly represent the American citizenry when negotiating with its pals in the oil patch? Let's see the details before we back any Bush proposals.
Posted by dopp at June 18, 2008 12:20 PMPeter, Peter, Peter. Facts are these:
1) 77M acres of onshore and offshore area is currently available for oil drilling in US.
2) Only 17% of the 77M acres of leased areas are in production
3) 10,000 drilling permits are currently stockpiled by the oil companies
So why are the oil companies drilling on only 17% of the areas that what are available to them? Why are they stockpiling the 10,000 drilling permits? Why, when they are only drilling on 17% of the areas that are available to them, are they asking for more land? Why not just drill where they already have the permits and then start asking for more land. How can the high price of gas be blamed on not being able to drill in ANWAR when the oil companies are already sitting on 83% of the available areas to drill?
Even my grammer school kids know that conservation and renewable energy is the common sense approach to the problem. Why is it so hard of certain "conservatives"?
Posted by Howd at June 18, 2008 02:01 PMYou tell 'em, Howd! Conservation is the way to go! If you don't like energy prices, buy a bike!
Posted by Muck at June 18, 2008 04:51 PMno one believes your kimchee any more...
Hey now, careful: kimchee may really stink but it's good eatin'!
peter is adding some flavor to this site. I disagree about his suggestions that Gramm/and other Republicans weren't at the heart of this debacle. ....and certainly with Bush controlling the govt. agenda, the Enron loophole would have been fixed. Not!
Clinton was under assault and his right of center Democratic Leadership Council style was 'republican-lite'...so does that let the Republicans off the hook for lying to the US and saying the markets solve everything?
This 'profit-taking' isnt' due to supply and demand as even the experts such as CEO of Mobil/exxon agreed if market forces were determining the price it'd be about 55 bucks a gal. It is pure profiteering due to monopolies of capital and price fixing.
Posted by datadave at June 18, 2008 05:48 PMPeter, McCain, Bush, et.al., can talk all they want about drilling-drilling solving our energy problems.
Their actions speak much louder. Take a look.
Posted by jackalope at June 18, 2008 06:32 PM
Evidently, I need technique as well as instructions.
Posted by jackalope at June 18, 2008 06:53 PM
Peter, you can't drill your way out of our energy crisis. Rightwing talking points should be used on Redstate, not here.Go to McSame's website and give him some money Petey, he's going to need it when Obama fucking swamps him in fundraising, you idiot.
Posted by Joe at June 19, 2008 04:14 AMWe don't have a gas shortage, so how would drilling help? Why are oil companies holding leases and not drilling? It's pretty damn simple. Oil companies exist to maximize profits, not provide cheap gas. Oil companies are investing their profits in the market, not investing in infrastructure or passing on their profits to the people. And why would they? They exist to maximize profits. More leases mean their balance sheets look better.
Posted by ann at June 19, 2008 05:47 AMSpeculation ? The growth of moneysupply is over 15% but the supply of oil is NOT increasing by 15%. So, it's oil which is in short supply, NOT money. And this is ONE of the reasons the price of oil is over $135. BTW, every additional $25 increase of a barrel of oil means an additional $1 priceincrease for gasoline. This means that $ 135 would put the price of gasoline at approx. $5.40 a gallon. You're lucky to pay only $ 4.60 for gas.