Republicans cozy with oil industry

**maxx** · May-14-10, 03:17 PM

On NPR today, E.J. Dionne said that you didn't have to be a Washington insider to know that the Bush admin. was too cozy with the oil industry. You just had to be sentient. They let the oil barons write their own environmental standards and now we are reaping the results. W did the same in Texas, letting the polluting industries police themselves. What a crock. And evidently the citizens of Texas bought it. Vote Republican and get more of the same.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-14-10, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

On NPR today, E.J. Dionne said that you didn't have to be a Washington insider to know that the Bush admin. was too cozy with the oil industry. You just had to be sentient. They let the oil barons write their own environmental standards and now we are reaping the results. W did the same in Texas, letting the polluting industries police themselves. What a crock. And evidently the citizens of Texas bought it. Vote Republican and get more of the same.

That may be fairly accurate, but don't let the dems fool you - they're trying to climb into bed with the republicrats and the oil men. And they aren't content being on the lower bunk.

**mjs** · May-14-10, 06:13 PM

Its not a Democrat/Republican issue. Today, I heard someone say:

For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill.

Oh, yeah, that was said by our Democratic President today as reported by PBS News Hour. I believe that a decade or more ago would have been when Clinton was President. You know, the Democrat who wouldn't back the extremely widely supported Kyoto agreement because big oil was against it. Quit repeating the same BS mantras that the party leadership feed you before laughing at you during their fancy dinners in their exhorbant mansions.

Look, while Democrat Gore helped bring alot of attention to many worthy environmental causes, Republican Nixon created the EPA and Republican Roosevelt put 230 million acres under federal protection. My point is to support individuals on their actions rather than parties on their words because a party is a fictictious entity. It has no heart beat, no sympathy, and no sense of morality.

**Jimaz** · May-14-10, 07:43 PM

Also, I think most would agree the problem goes far beyond just the oil industry. The root of the problem might be the lobbyist industry which is a particularly difficult nut to crack given their right to petition their government. What we need is a way to regain the balance between the lobbying power of wealth and the lobbying power of the people governed.

**gnome** · May-15-10, 03:50 AM

and the root cause ... all those who drive cars, use plastic, take meds or use electricity to power their computers.

**oldredfordette** · May-15-10, 08:44 AM

I hope you're being facetious, gnome.

**maxx** · May-15-10, 10:08 AM

mjs: You know, the Democrat who wouldn't back the extremely widely supported Kyoto agreement because big oil was against it

maxx: The Congress wouldn't ratify it. Don't make that Clinton's sole decision. As soon as the Republicans' obvious subservience to big businesses makes it into the media, the apologists are there to say the Dems are just as bad. Look at the verdict on Reaganomics. Take from the middle class and give to the super rich. That's the Republican way lately.

mjs: Republican Roosevelt put 230 million acres under federal protection.

maxx: Puh-leeze! TR was an entirely different type of Republican. Where are the trust busters today? At least Obama criticized the oil industry for the latest disaster. And that could cost the Dems financially.

**jiminnm** · May-15-10, 10:21 AM

Actually, the Kyoto Protocols were rejected by the Senate of 95-0. That isn't a Republican vs. Democrat vote. That's a common sense vote because the protocols would have put the US at an even more serious economic disadvantage to China and other countries.

**Bobl** · May-15-10, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by maxx

On NPR today, E.J. Dionne said that you didn't have to be a Washington insider to know that the Bush admin. was too cozy with the oil industry. You just had to be sentient. They let the oil barons write their own environmental standards and now we are reaping the results. W did the same in Texas, letting the polluting industries police themselves. What a crock. And evidently the citizens of Texas bought it. Vote Republican and get more of the same.

All true. Now, after deleting "republicans" and inserting "democrats", you again have an accurate statement. Perhaps nuance and degree might be argued, but what is the alternative in a two party system, in a nation whose supreme court has ruled that international corporations have more rights due to their wealth than working citizens? He [[that corporation) who owns the two parties, owns the citizens.

**maxx** · May-15-10, 10:34 AM

Bobi: in a nation whose supreme court has ruled that international corporations have more rights due to their wealth than working citizens?

maxx: Those were Republican appointees to the SCOTUS that made that decision and after all the Republican screaming about liberal activist judges. Their hypocrisy is palpable.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-15-10, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by mjs

Its not a Democrat/Republican issue. Today, I heard someone say:

For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill.

Oh, yeah, that was said by our Democratic President today as reported by PBS News Hour. I believe that a decade or more ago would have been when Clinton was President. You know, the Democrat who wouldn't back the extremely widely supported Kyoto agreement because big oil was against it. Quit repeating the same BS mantras that the party leadership feed you before laughing at you during their fancy dinners in their exhorbant mansions.

Look, while Democrat Gore helped bring alot of attention to many worthy environmental causes, Republican Nixon created the EPA and Republican Roosevelt put 230 million acres under federal protection. My point is to support individuals on their actions rather than parties on their words because a party is a fictictious entity. It has no heart beat, no sympathy, and no sense of morality.

Thank you. Excellent comments.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-15-10, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

and the root cause ... all those who drive cars, use plastic, take meds or use electricity to power their computers.

I think your comments are accurate. But are we truly given choices? This is supposed to be a free market, but it is driven by monopolies. Do you have a choice between chemical based and natural or organic based containers and products? I can't get my association to allow solar panels because they say it will mar the appearances of our complex. That's ignorance. I drive what was one of the most fuel efficient autos available at the time I purchased. The US auto makers offered nothing in the ballpark at the time. Look at what they're going through right now. And their neglect has negatively affected all of us. I'm not suggesting your contention that we are all responsible is incorrect, I'm saying we aren't allowed enough choices in our supposed 'free market' place.

**Bobl** · May-15-10, 01:51 PM

maxx: Those were Republican appointees to the SCOTUS that made that decision and after all the Republican screaming about liberal activist judges. Their hypocrisy is palpable.

True. Any thinking person knew then that all the talk about avoiding "activist" judges, and insisting on "right to life" was bull. But it worked, and here we are.

**gibran** · May-15-10, 04:29 PM

It's time that we consider what and who was in the regulatory positions with Bush...he had at one point people in charge of the hen houses those whose houses were not that tidy prior to serving [[ and it has taken this long to unravel their impact...seems it does take a crisis to do so though)...and yes this is a shared responsibility/ so it should become a shared solutions...way to much finger pointing going on while Rome [[USA) is burning and the president whose goal is to be active is being hammered by the greed and malice of republicans and the pure laziness and fear from the democrats...

by the way where is SARAH [[grizzly mama) one the oil spill? silent as usual and pandering to a new crowd [[abortion rights and NRA)....

Sarah where is the big bad government taking away guns...where is your values when you considered an abortion with your son [[that's very nice of you to save his life...that says volumes of what she really is about...but it may of only caught the eyes of disability rights activists)....

so yes you have to ask yourself whose government [[we have to have one folks)...would you want protecting our environment, disabled, poor and elderly?

Sorry Gov Terminator ...those low hanging fruit are more important than your high hanging buddies....

**maxx** · May-15-10, 05:53 PM

Where are our wind cooperatives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

To encourage investment in wind power, families were offered a tax exemption for generating their own electricity within their own or an adjoining commune.[17] While this could involve purchasing a turbine outright, more often families purchased shares in wind turbine cooperatives which in turn invested in community wind turbines. By 1996 there were around 2,100 such cooperatives in the country.[17] Opinion polls show that this direct involvement has helped the popularity of wind turbines, with some 86% of Danes supporting wind energy when compared with existing fuel sources.[3]

**mjs** · May-16-10, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

mjs: Republican Roosevelt put 230 million acres under federal protection.

maxx: Puh-leeze! TR was an entirely different type of Republican. Where are the trust busters today? At least Obama criticized the oil industry for the latest disaster. And that could cost the Dems financially.

Puh-leeze! Puh-leeze! Puh-leeze! Supporting the BP leper would be even more costly in votes. Even W would have criticized BP at this point. I'll give Obama credit for committing to improved regulation and his change on offshore drilling, but he did fully support offshore drilling during his campaign and his branch is the one thats tasked with ensuring these companies comply with the law. I'll give you one guess as to which politician was the largest beneficiary of BP donations in 2008.

Second, nice try at bait-and-switch, but my comment was directed to environmentalism by our first environmental President, not the trust busting of that same President. However, I wish I knew where the trust busters were today. Antitrust isn't just good for consumers while protecting democracy from excessive corporate influence, but in the long run, its better for the trust itself. Unchecked market domination ultimately undermined the durabilty of GM, US Steel, IBM, media conglomarates, etc as at some point someone always finds a way around the lethargic giants. And if that someone is foreign, its costs us American jobs, industries, and tax payer money. If Dems were actually trust busters, it could very well get me out of the independant camp. Remember that BP-Amoco and ExxonMobil were both approved under the Clinton administration as were Worldcom-MCI and CitiCorp-Travelers, which has been credited with the death blow to Glass-Steagall which is the root casue of the greatest recession since the great depression.

**Jimaz** · May-16-10, 07:22 PM

From today's Free Press: Poll shows a shift: Keep Dems in charge

"I'm a new Democrat," said Harley Smithson, 51, of Baltimore, who said he had recently switched from the GOP. "I want to be with a party that's for something instead of against everything."

That whole neocon deregulate everything meme is beginning to be recognized as a severe political liability. I would have expected classic Republicans to have distanced themselves from it by now by claiming their party had been hijacked by neocons. That might have given them a more firm toehold in the polls. But that doesn't seem to be happening. What's interesting is that the neocon legacy isn't being discussed more than it is. It's as if they're just hoping the memories will fade or perhaps they fear some retaliation for even mentioning it.

**gibran** · May-16-10, 07:58 PM

Jimaz they havent faded they are alive and well with the Iran Debate....and suddenly silent on the oil and coal disasters...

**Jimaz** · May-16-10, 08:50 PM

Yes, I understand the memories of the neocon legacy haven't faded and are unlikely to fade in the near future. The hope that they might fade seems to be there and irrational -- indicating an underlying desperation/denial.

What I'm saying is that very often in political analysis, what isn't said is more revealing than what is said. What is conspicuously not being said lately is a defense of deliberately rabid neocon deregulation. Even the conspicuous absence of that defense is itself conspicuously absent.

Very interestink.

**mjs** · May-16-10, 11:01 PM

In what context would a deregulation proponent have something to say? What instance would he cite as needing less regulation? There's mining safety regulation where companies get fined yet never get shut down for multiple infractions or unpaid fines. There's NHTSA that is told of safety incidents, yet actively helps foreign companies hide them from the public. There's MMS that routinely ignores regulations and cancels public hearings based on the mere word of the people they are tasked with checking. Even the SEC was told of Madoff and handed the whole damned case minute detail-by-detail and all it amounted to was, we asked him, but he said don't worry. I'm not even sure what an antitrust regulator could say he has done with the last twenty years of his career. Who was fired, who lost a pension, who lost an election? Just an ineffective statute here and an angry speech there.

There's some very good books out there that tell how lobbyists and corporations have been able to appease all sides by spinning multiple sells. Sure, make this group happy by passing more regulation; make the other group happy by ensuring it won't be enforced. Help Republicans support a GM bailout by saying its saving a corporation emblematic of American power. Help Democrats support it by saying it saves American jobs. Bailout Citigroup to save the market, but attach no conditions so even the market losers can still "retain talent" and save executive bonuses.

I voted for Nader in a few elections and god knows there's been virtually no regulation since he last forced it down Washington's throats yet some people still claim that that was the wasted voted. I'm told that instead of voting for the guy that doesn't want the special interest money, I should either be voting for the guy that got ghastly amounts of lobbying money or the guy that get even more ghastly amounts. The time has come to take a stand and dump the two party system even if it seems like swinging at windmills and its time to once again have a healthy distrust of centralized government and give some powers back to the states. The more fragmented the government power structure is, the harder it is to corrupt. And we really have to begin massive public campaign funding and taxes on campaign contributions so the biggest fund raisers are no longer given the biggest bullhorns. Every candidate deserves an equal opportunity to be heard.

**gibran** · May-16-10, 11:35 PM

I to find it really interesting...some on the right is able to blame everything on Obama; and all the while the neocons...whose disasters are creepy and will be longer lasting....seems to have slinked under the rocks...I do find it interesting that Nader was left off most debates and would at least wanted his views in the debates [[meet him once..he really was a voice of interest)...would like to hear him and Chomsky debate these neocons...too bad Zinn passed also....we still have others ...hopefully the younger generation will produce lions who can take these guys place..unfortunately the radical in the conservative movement is what is rising...SARAH [[give me a break) is rising even when her rhetoric is being exposed...

**Papasito** · May-17-10, 08:19 AM

Republicans cozy with oil industry

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895/page/2

Greedy crooks, Democrats and Republicans alike.

**maxx** · May-21-10, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bobl

Any thinking person knew then that all the talk about avoiding "activist" judges, and insisting on "right to life" was bull. But it worked, and here we are.

When Adlai Stevenson was running for president, someone said to him something like "Don't worry. You've got the vote of every thinking American." Stevenson supposedly replied, "That's not enough. I need a majority."

**maxx** · May-21-10, 09:59 PM

mjs: Puh-leeze! Puh-leeze! Puh-leeze! Supporting the BP leper would be even more costly in votes. Even W would have criticized BP at this point.

maxx; W talked a lot, but he acted in the interest of the rich. The man was called a pathological liar by one of his professors. Just google salon.com The Dunce.

mjs: Remember that BP-Amoco and ExxonMobil were both approved under the Clinton administration as were Worldcom-MCI and CitiCorp-Travelers,..

maxx : Approved for what? AS long as money is considered speech, candidates will be dependent on big money to get elected. And the way legislation is made, the bills are huge because every Congress member has to put in her/his contribution either in the body of the bill, or in an amendment. There arrives a point, just like with the health care reform bill, when so much time has been committed to the bill, that it takes a lot to keep it from getting passed. Of course, the Republicans aren't interested in doing anything that would be considered socially progressive . They're best at dragging their feet when it comes time to doing things like processing civil rights or labor complaints. Reagan ended up with a huge backlog of labor cases. But they're ready to pass tax cuts for the rich at the drop of a hat. How has all that trickle down worked for you? The verdict on Reaganomics is abysmal for the average person. You can find it at alternet.

**maxx** · May-21-10, 10:06 PM

gibran: SARAH [[give me a break) is rising even when her rhetoric is being exposed...

maxx: Maybe Sarah will go down with Rand Paul. He really stuck his foot in it showing the Republicans' true hand with his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Yes, I detest racism and I would speak against it even while I would protect any businessperson's right to deny service to someone merely because of his/her race."