Redstate

Apropos of nothing in particular, wonder what he's doing in 2006?

We modify your tag line to DeWine Delenda Est.

Where is the leadership.

A handful of wealthy communist lobbyists can control this congress and prevent the people's natural resources from being utilized for our security and economic benefit.

It' s time to stop toying with these idiots and take it to the next level.

The filibustercrats are ridiculous.  Lose elections?  No problem, we'll just filibuster everything!

I hope the GOP'ers remember this and when the Dems regain control of the Senate they filibuster every single piece of legislation.  Give them a taste of their own medicine.

I live in Cincinnati, Mike DeWine makes me sick, and I assure you he will NOT have an easy time getting reelected.

you dump DeWine, we'll dump Lieberman, or you can just have him, and we'll pick up Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett.

Sounds good to me.

I'm all about letting the loyal opposition have mindless, loose cannons.

for parity's sake

which is why i'd prefer Brown.

But i'll take Hackett.  Sometimes you need someone to call it how they see it, even if they're kinda nuts the other half of the time.  Every team needs an ornery SOB sometimes, especially this pack of wussy dems.

on this, but could we drill in ANWAR via Executive Order?

From Fox's article about ANWR:

The legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue bonus bids from oil leases, the first of which must be issued within 22 months and the second package in 2010. Half of the lease proceeds and future royalties from oil production would go to Alaska.

What the Senate should do is if they have to take ANWR out of the legislation to make it pass, they should also add in $5 billion in spending cuts from stuff that goes to dark blue districts.  Make the bastards choose between allowing ANWR drilling and cutting their own home district money.

The majority want's it. But your right, that would be a nice touch to start things boiling.

Excellent idea!

So long as you then force the blood red districts to foot their own ag subsidies....do you really want to play that game?

It simply wouldn't be true, nor would it have been prompted by the mutterings of a liberal oppo poster :-).

Ag subsidies are way out of line.

Deal?

The fact that ANWR and the defense spending bill were rolled into one package is one of the prime reasons why federal politics are so utterly not worth the time we spend on them.  It's cheap, it's stupid, and it is extraordinarily bipartisan.  If I wanted to echo Blanton's rather predictable rant, I could pitch the whole "no, it's the Republicans who are holding the troops hostage to their pet project to drill more oil in Alaska," but we all know that is equally nonsensical.  This is just stupid politics on two issues deserving of independent consideration and discussion.

So is Dewine scared of Hackett, or why the heck is he cutting back to the middle so hard?  He's a pretty reliable conservative on so many things, I can only assume he's trying to stock his arsenal for 2006.

McCain do the same thing with his suicidal

"Torture" amendment?

That a couple Republicans went wobbly.  Especially considering the two (Dewine & Chafee).  This is a prime example of why some incumbents shouldn't be supported by the party in primaries when there is a viable conservative alternative.  It was shameful not to vote for cloture on this bill.  Apparently, Republicans require 60 senators for a majority in the senate.  But I think many people already knew that.

Fans of ag subsudies here. That is corporate welfare of the worst kind. It also drives small farms out of existence because of the huge effect they have on the price of land. The corporate farms are the only ones that can afford to buy land and once they own it they aren't selling.

What it really means is OIL Over Troops and Combat Operations. If Ted Stevens really concerned himself about the troops he'd remove this article in the bill rather than sneaking it in, leeching off important issues like troop funding and catastrophe relief.

So the bill got voted down because of the ANWR drilling. So what does the good Senator do? He vows to tie the bill up for as long as it takes to get his oil interests satisfied. Sounds like he really cares about troops.

What really is a shame is the fact that so many people believe this bill got voted down because people don't support troops. That's just another lie fabricated by rats like Stevens and other that support the same greedy oil executives he cleared from last months hearings. What a shame. What a sham.

I wanna play too!

Remember the stupid farm bill that Bush (again) didnt veto? I think the best (read "worst") part of it was that Congress partially justified its huge expense because it included Emergency Relief monies already in it. Then maybe a week or so later they proposed a seperate bill for guess what...Emergency Relief.

Good work they're doing up there on that Hill.

As an Ohio voter, I did my civic duty of apprising Mr. DeWine of my intention to never vote for him in a primary -or- general election, for the rest of his soon-to-be-shortened political career.

He always creeped me out, anyway.

Evan

bitter little fellow, aren't you.

It seems to me that about 40 senators decided that they valued tundra and caribou more than soldiers. Just like the story says.

Let's face it. When you have Democrats voting against a Defense bill you rarely think they do it out of principle but out of kneejerk anti-military feeling.

I can't believe I checked back in to read this.

Merry Christmas everyone, and Happy New Year.

See, wasn't that easy?  :)

Moe

thanks for reminding me. Guess your mentality is to just accept what the label says...man what's the use of debating a bunch of repetitive robots...i guess if you believe the mainstream conservative thought construct you can get along just fine here, otherwise I guess moderates or anybody else are just labeled liberal.

Stay focused champ.

I have emailed both of my Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, to ask them how they are preparing to deal with no paychecks for the military in January. I also suggested they prepare themselves for the eviction of military families when they have no money for their rent. That should go over really well in Oceanside (Camp Pendleton). I also asked them how they are preparing to deal with military hospitals closing because they have no funding. I await their answers.

0100100100100000010000010100110100100000010000010010000001001100010000010100110101000101001000000100100101000100010010010100111101010100

You should send the same letter to Ted Stevens, except ask him why greed for oil got in the way of our troops lives.

that it was voted down because people, even Democrats, don't support the troops.

It got voted down because the Democrats care more about their left wing enviro-wacko supporters than they do about the troops.  

I'd pretty much have to say that's a ridiculous and baseless statement founded pretty much only on your personal opinion. If you can shoot one unbiased fact that states this point (oh wait, I forgot, facts don't matter to you guys. As long as it sounds good it's right...right?)

Keep spinning the tale my friend.

how about Redstate takes up a collection for you and your 44 friends in the Senate to take a trip up to your precious ANWR next week, you can spend a week up there, keep a journal and take lots of pictures to share with us when you return and convince us that ANWR isn't a vast worthless artic wasteland.

I pulled up an article (an AP story in WaPo) about this vote, and saw one little tidbit that I was totally unaware of.  The article said, "While the region looks bleak during its long winters and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations . . ."  

What???  I guess my head has been buried in the (coal tar) sands, but oil is already seeping out of the rocks in ANWR???

Has anyone ever studied whether there would actually be an environmental benefit to drilling there?  Maybe a geologist can tell us if drilling would relieve pressure on the oil deposits and stop these (non-man-made) oil spills.

I believe expanding our energy supplies is in the national interest, and it's related to the war. I would rather my senators answer my questions. I would also like to know why they feel they must continually cave in to leftist "environmentalists" over our security and energy independence. (And please spare me the idea that we are going to run our economy on windmills and lawn clippings.)

It's cheap, it's stupid, and it is extraordinarily bipartisan.

We resent the allegation, and furthermore, we resent the allegator!

this is a conservative site, read the Mission statement if you have doubts. You can't come into our house, swill our bandwidth, insult us, and stay.

To the contrary, given the antipathy of the Democrat party to the military and the degree to which it is held in thrall by the enviros it is your opinion that would seem to be close to fact free.

But as "we guys" don't care about "facts" -- as an aside it's doubtful that you or anyone you know could pick a fact out of a two-man line up -- I don't see why you are wasting your time here. I'm sure you can find more simpatico souls somewhere who will sing hosannas to your brilliance while we still wallow in the bog of ignorance.

Go find them.

this stuff we all wouldn't know each other. Without other outlets we might turn to crime. We might even run for office.

This is not the oil seeping from the ground that you are looking for.

Obi Wan Kenobi

-----------

Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, etc could not have hurt us more with 500 alger hisses than the dem party has by the 30 year self inflicted wound bans on oil refineries, oil drilling in "sensitive new areas" and nuclear power plant construction.

Just as their rhetoric and actions couldnt be topped by 50 bin laden propaganda spies.

thats the bottom line net question.

But I repeat myself

Mark Twain

----------------------

But it's mother loves it. :-)

Natural oil seepage is common. From the Minerals Management Service website (emphasis added):

The California nearshore and coastal areas are replete with natural seeps.  It is estimated that over 1,000 barrels of oil each week are released into the environment from these seeps.  (From the Coal Oil Point seeps alone, almost 200 barrels a day may be entering the ocean.) There is some evidence that commercial production of the reservoirs offshore has reduced the amount of oil that would naturally seep into the marine environment by reducing pressure in the reservoirs.

By the way, offshore California is closed to new exploration.

First, I believe that our country functions best with two, serious fully active political parties and that it is very important that we have a viable Democratic party. Second I believe that the Democratic party as it is currently structured and behaving is not capable of being trusted with the safety, security or future of this country.

I want my children to live in freedom, safety and prosperity; the current Democratic Party is not capable of ensuring those things.

Drilling for oil in the ANWR to relieve our dependence on foreign sources of that vital resource, while we simultaneously do research for alternative fuels (which Bush and Co. have funded at levels far above any previous Prez.)

AND

Provide the needed and eminently worthy funding for our military.

I see no reason to not combine them since they both contribute to national security in so many ways, and are both eminently reasonable.

Ted Stevens -- who knows Alaska and its voters better than you or I -- should be commended, not scolded, for his vision in combining them.

that the authorities have been remiss is not requiring Earth to file the required Environmental Impact Statements. Given this it is obvious that the planet can not be entrusted with it's continuing stewardship of itself and that control must be vested in the Sierra Club immediately if not sooner. Failing to so wo will result in a continuing string of environmental suits against Earth.

Stevens attached it to this bill because he thought that no one would be so stupid as to dare kill the defense bill. Well, surprise, Stevens was wrong, the Democrats are that stupid.

Next time you drive your car or heat your home or use a product made from materials derived from the petrochemical industry, think about where the oil for those various substances (gasoline, heating oil, plastics) came from.

It's your (and my) greed for oil, via our economy, that drives the absolute necessity of finding more sources of oil in non-hostile parts of the world.

"Greed" is so negative. Perhaps drop the negatively-charged words and discuss with us the merits of the case at hand rather than hop up and down waving your arms and tossing off charged words. If you hadn't noticed, most posters at Redstate are smarter than the average BushLied Weekly(tm) subscriber and sees the substance behind the charged words... which, in your case, is lacking.

If my math is correct, then every five years, there is as much oil spilled naturally, just off the coast of California, as was spilled by the Exxon Valdez?!?

More evidence that the radical environmentalists are really more against capitalism than they are for protecting the environment!

it's still pretty smart on his part to attach it to that bill, politically (to force the Dems to filibuster troop funding if they're that beholden to the enviro-wackos) and for sake of seeing the two issues as linked in mission and purpose.

had tacked something on to a defense bill that Republicans strongly objected to, wouldn't most of you expect Republicans to vote against the bill unless the objectionable portion was removed?

I am slowly coming around on ANWR, (mostly due to my learning of the relatively small area affected).  However, tacking this on a defense bill is pretty blatant arm twisting. Wouldn't the bill pass fairly easily without the ANWR attachment on it?

normally smart. I personally don't care for extraneous riders on legislation and I'd prefer they didn't do it. But the rules in Congress allow it so ...

That said it does say a lot about the Dems, both motivation and intelligence. Just another set of video clips for the 2006/2008 Republican campaign commercial warchest. At this rate they are going to need another warehouse to store all the clips :-)

can be said about CO2, SO2, Mercury, blah blah blah. The enviros never bother to mention that for many naturally occuring materials Mother Nature is the world's worst polluter, man doesn't hold a candle.

If Democrats had tacked something on to a defense bill that Republicans strongly objected to, wouldn't most of you expect Republicans to vote against the bill unless the objectionable portion was removed?

Maybe, if this practice hadn't been going on for 9,000 years, but not a defense appropriation.

what Democrats tacked on a defense bill (universal goverment funded healthcare for pets, abortion available at all 7-11's) you would expect Republicans to vote for it?

Ok, yes, those were extreme examples. :) My point though, is that I am guessing that there is a line where you expect your Senator to say, no way.....

But they can stay there, (mail the photos)!

Years back, the Feds required a California offshore oil operator to drop an inverted funnel over one of these seeps to collect the oil & prevent it from escaping into the environment.

Let's not forget volcanos as major sources of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide, etc. Not to mention particulate matter. A single big eruption makes all human activity pale by comparison.

Mother Nature (note: no ID reference) has a wonderful way of cleaning up her own messes (and some of ours, too). You gotta wonder if there are some organisms somewhere which find all this nasty stuff beneficial (like, for example, oil eating bacteria).

That is the unbelievable thing. I didn't think they would be willing to forgo that. I wonder what Kayne West would have to say about the Senators that voted to fillibuster.

You don't have to come up with hypotheticals. I'm not fond of all the dough that is in there for Katrina reconstruction (what does that have to do with DoD)? I still don't expect them to vote to fillibuster the final bill. The good still greatly outweighs the bad. I would rather things get an up or down vote too. I am not a big fan of the Senate rules.

Totally, why do we need the Congress? We should just do everything via Executive order.

Excellent idea!!! Either they do what we say or we starve them!!!

Ok how about if a big tax increase is tacked on?

The Democratic Senators are on food stamps now?

But I swear I am so tired of every politician tying every issue to the troops, the war, etc.  If we're serious about the war, we pass the defense bills without trying to tack on anything else.  Fight the war, scalp each other on smaller fish in our spare time.

and wouldn't be with the current elected officials in office (a status quo not likely to change with the Dems seemingly incapable of letting the GOP be the party with the worst PR in town). Now that we've dispensed with your irrelevent hypothetical, move along.

It's the Senate rules that allow this. I don't like it and I wish they'd stop. But as long as they get to make their own rules it isn't going to stop so we just have to suck it up.

"... weed us off the Arabian oil ..." should be "... ween us off the Arabian oil ..."

It got voted down because the Democrats care more about their left wing enviro-wacko supporters than they do about the troops.

I'm a little confused about how we can't support the troops without the ANWR thing being part of the bill.

Actually I'm not confused at all--this is politicking at its finest set up for the express purpose of making people say precisely what you just said.

This is like a good chess move where your opponent can save his bishop or knight, but not both.  If your opponents pass it, then you get your oil, and the troops get their stuff.  If your opponents don't pass it, then you get to make them look bad when the troops don't get their stuff.

A worse political move would have been to leave ANWR out of it.  In that case, the troops would get their stuff, but you wouldn't get either of A) oil or B) making your opponents look bad.

So the worse political move would have gotten the troops their stuff for sure, whereas the better one had a chance of not getting them their stuff.  Should we put ANWR in the bill (good politics, maybe bad for troops), or leave it out (bad politics, definitely good for troops)?

Now I ask you, who really cares about the troops?  Because, I hope I have made clear, whoever supports ANWR being in that bill cares more about items A) and B), above, than the troops getting their cash.

I hate to sound obsessive-compulsive, but I am, so it should be "...wean us off the Arabian oil..."

Now that I've pointed it out, there is surely some galactical rule that says there is a misspelled word in this post.

Now, back to studying my navel.  :-)

have primary opponents yet?  I have not followed Dewine closely, has he always been unhinged like this?

So the Dems are to blame.  Not Stevens, who attached the bill to the military appropriation.   He's not not blame for potentially sinking the legislation.  Right.  If that legislation was so important, then Stevens should not have attached his little rider.   Stevens is the one who is putting the troops and the country at jeopardy.

Why not post Twain's full quote?  You just gave us an excerpt.

that excerpt paraphrased well (admittedly not perfectly) out of streiff's post especially because it is sometimes misquoted/paraphrased (?) as "Suppose I were a crook. Suppose I were a Congressman. But I repeat myself."

The actual quote as I recall is "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself."

Mark Train

But actually Twain would have been right either way :-)

----------------

... is still profanity ... and merely demonstrates that the mostly highly educated can be as profane as the young wannabe thugs on my street.

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

To whom much is given, much shall be required."

To that end,

01010010011001010111000001100101011011100111010000100001

Man-made mercury poisons (organomercury compounds for example) are far, far more dangerous and persistent than most of the natural deposits of mercury (such as mercury salts and elemental mercury.) This is why it's building up in fatty tissues of fish; nature doesn't have a fast mechanism for sequestering it away from living beings. Same thing is true for dioxins...they persist in the environment and take way too long to break down and wind up accumulating in the food chain.

But you're all right. Nature will solve the problem. We'll simply evolve to tolerate mercury or die in the process and the problem will be solved.

Organomercurials generally originate from microbial metabolization of Hg(0). That said, native mercury is relatively rare, and I don't know that there's any substantial microbial conversion of cinnabar to organomercurials, either directly or via Hg(0).

There are some plants that can also reduce mercury salts to oranomercury compounds such as dimethylmercury. But the bulk of this kind of pollution comes from manmade sources. When mercury salts or organomercury compounds are spilled, it's a freaking disaster. Organomercury compounds are fat-soluble, making them able to pass right through lipid bilayers in the body and get right to the CNS. This makes them 1000x more toxic than Hg(0) to mammals. Do you remember the story about a scientist who got just one drop of dimethylmercury on her glove about 10 years ago or so? It permeated through multiple layers of gloves and got to her skin. She died a horrible death.

I'd been looking at this page, which attributes organomercurial pollution in New Jersey estuaries to microbial metabolism of Hg(0), but I see now that Minamata involved the direct release of organomercurials.

Despite what the Commander in Chief or West Wing seem to think, Executive Orders do not have the capacity to commit the Federal Government to such actions.

I hadn't decoded his post before you brought it to my attention.

Maybe someday he'll follow your advice.

organomercury anywhere? Did I say anything about manmade compounds? I said

...many naturally occuring materials Mother Nature is the world's worst polluter, man doesn't hold a candle

I said naturally occuring to specifically exclude manmade materials because they can be different as you note.

That being said, the enviros also don't confine their pronouncements to manmade compounds.