When you let oil companies write the energy policy

 this is what you get. You reap what you sow.

That was Steve McMahon on Hardball this afternoon, speaking about high gas prices. A great frame. The point that oil companies have written the energy policy under the Bush administration, was simple and rang true.It should be included in all democratic talking points.

McMahon was better than I've seen him in a long time.

It was a great to see him pit the republican, Susan Molinari, against the president on the subject of immigration. Saying that the democrats agreed with Bush on a compassionate approach to earning citzenship. That democrats believed it was wrong morally to make it a felony to help a person. He left Molinari to sputter.

•  very good job

  of reminding us.  good way to sink the bushies by connecting them to the gas prices.

  perhaps it'll push the courts to open that meeting's minutes up, ya think?

  btw, if you're in texas, please join Texas KOS website.  if'n ya haven't.

  Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

  by krazypuppy on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:38:28 PM PDT

•  yes the talking point is quite simple and direct.

  the neocon "republicans" are not conservatives at all. they are corporatists who's first order of business was to allow the heads of the major oil corporations to write our nation's energy policy themselves - at the white house - in secret.  

  Feel neoconned yet?

  by cognitive dissonance on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:43:50 PM PDT

•  Molinari is an idiot.

  What was NY thinking sending that woman to congress?

  Slightly  OT, CNN just reported (ali velchy? I think?) that the DOE wants to expand the oil reserve in TX and LA to one billion barrels.  At 75$ a barrel.  I guess bush doesn't think the price is high enough yet. He wants it to go even higher by adding to the demand and taking supply off the market. At 75$ a barrel.

  JEEBUS! He must think that everyone in the country is a sheep.  This is INSANE!

  by dougymi on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:44:55 PM PDT

•  Now, this may sound very strange

  but there is actually kind of a weird precedent for the way government in this country allows big business to do odd things that make everybody--including oftentimes an enormous number of congressmen--tons of money, and leave small investors as suicidal bagholders. Once upon a time, there was no intercontinental railroad in this country, and rather than the government selling property to private interests who would slowly build out track to new settlements as they developed, and gradually make money in the process, the government entered into some fairly transparent shenanigans with the people who would become known affectionately as the Robber Barons. These people basically got the government to give their companies tens of millions of acres AND ALL THE RIGHTS associated with the land, like the mineral rights, timber rights, etc., etc. It was so bad that there are actually letters in existence in which various Robber Barons write to other Robber Barons and say stuff like, "Can you believe these corrupt assholes just gave us all this crap FOR FREE??" Of course, the governments during these periods were almost exclusively Republican, because as you'll remember the South was going through Reconstruction, or just coming out of it, so either the Republicans were in power through occupation, or were in power because of the weakened state any opposition party.

  Now, none of this is the weird part. The weird part is that I'm not entirely sure this complete and utter graft was completely a bad thing. It's true that an enormous amount of money went to waste, and that the government basically sold out the resources of the nation to a handful of private interests, but I'm just not certain that we could ever have built the rail system in this country using another means. We couldn't have done it, I don't think, by having the government issue government bonds. I bring this up only to point out that in some weird way, our ancestors may find themselves looking back at our venal, stupid, completely corrupt, republican-dominated congress and saying, "You know, they were utterly corrupt, but in a weird way, we wouldn't have "such-and-such" if they hadn't been such complete assholes. The only problem with my theory is that I'm not currently sure what "such-and-such" we've actually gotten out of these jokers yet.

  by steve davis on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:51:50 PM PDT

  •  The populist pivot

    The railroads were given large tracts of land on either side of the rights-of-way, which they then sold to farmers to homestead.  Once the farm families got there, they discovered that the railroads had them by the short hairs for everything they needed to buy, and for shipping their crops to market.  While the Populists are mostly remembered for the silver issue, it was the screwing they got from the railroads that launched the Populist movement, and one of the main fruits of that movement was regulation of railroad rates.  The principles developed in railroad regulation became commonplace across America in the 20th century in regullating utility companies.  It is only in recent years that this basic principle advanced by the Populists has been abandoned.  Is it any surprise then, taht for the first time in a generation we're hearing growing talk of economic populism?

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:44:51 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely! But strangely, the history

      of big business in this country through much of the mid to late 1800's does at least offer SOME support for the notion that the best way to get things done economically is to offer virtually no control from the top (meaning the government, because it has ultimate sovereign authority), but instead to let people kind of fill niches on their own. Attempting to add more authority often just adds more instability. Sorry, I'm just heavily into Matthew Josephson's work on the Robber Barons and the interplay of business interests with the government in the book titled The Politicos. I'd never really understood before how absolutely standard the current Republican level of croneyism is.  I always knew that politics in the 1800's was often unbelievably corrupt, but I'd never completely seen how utterly corrupt the Republican party has always been, even when Lincoln was president.

      by steve davis on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:26:34 PM PDT

  •  gee, you're an optimist

    You're an optimist like I've never seen.

    Sure and maybe if we nuke Iran it will lead to something good in the long run, too.   Like everybody will see what horrible things nukes are and will rise to force governments all around the world to disband them.

    In other words, you're dreaming.   :)

    by theyrereal on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:37:58 PM PDT

•  it's true, that's why it is effective

  it's the simple truth

  by themank on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:09:27 PM PDT

•  Might be a good time to

  bring up those meetings Cheney had early in the presidency.  

  You know, the ones that he's been all secretive about?  The ones where he was meeting with oil barons to determine PUBLIC energy policy?

  That he hasn't made PUBLIC?

  That he's hung onto desperately, fighting all the way to the Supreme Court (I think).

  Did they mention invading Iraq, Cheney?   Was that part of your "Energy Policy", Uncle DickHead?

  Might be a good time to demand those minutes once again and let Cheney hide them.  Again.

  by theyrereal on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:40:34 PM PDT

•  so WHO was at cheney's energy meeting ?

  so WHO was at cheney's energy meeting that he has refused to grant access to? i'm thinking ken lay, skilling, the people behind the screwing of california (and therein gray davis), a couple members of the bin laden family, ALL the oil companies were there, gas, electricity, GM, all rich beyond their wildest dreams now. maybe now we could find out? anybody?

  by mike miller on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:54:33 PM PDT

•  Demand Chenye's Oil Cabal release their records

  They discussed what to put in the legislation in secret.  They would not tell the American people - now Americans know why.  Bush and Cheney’s oil buddies aren’t unhappy with the high gas prices are they?

  This is such an easy smear attack.  

  by deepsouthdoug on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:24:52 PM PDT