Not long ago our old pal Moneybags Mitch McConnell resorted to his old tricks of misleading tacticts to win elections. I mean, when your record of rubber-stamping every failed policy which has created almost every pressing problem our country faces, you really hope the voters don't notice.

The offshore areas of the United States are estimated to contain significant quantities of resources in yet-to-be-discovered fields. MMS estimates of oil and gas resources in undiscovered fields on the OCS (2006, mean estimates) total 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas. These volumes represent about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States

.

http://www.mms.gov/...
Data from government

Let's be constructive. Obama wants to put 15 billion a year into alternative energy and we have a big deficit, so we can use some of the profits to fund  alternative energy, which is neccesary.

 Most Americans want to drill, upwards  of sixty percent. Drilling

The Republicans are in a rabid frenzy about offshore drilling. They've finally realized that the US has to break away from its dependence on foreign oil.

But what has caused their sudden epiphany?

"Use It or Lose It" legislation fails to reach two-thirds majority.

On June 26th in response to ongoing calls to allow oil drilling off the coast of the United States and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Democratic members of Congress offered "Use It or Lose It" legislation to mandate that oil companies either drill on federal land they have leased or relinquish the right to do so.  Currently, oil companies have dormant leases to over 68 million acres in the western United States and Alaska that are available for immediate drilling and exploration that, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) "contains over 100 billion barrels of oil".

While the vote was 223 for and 195 against, it failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed for passage under shortcut parliamentary rules.  For the record, all Democratic members of the Pennsylvania delegation voted for "Use It or Lose It" while all Pennsylvania Republicans voted against with the exception of Rep. John Peterson who did not vote.

**Cross-posted at www.ColoradoPols.com**

UPDATED: Minor typo, new link...

Breaking his long silence, in which he has only recently bothered to lay out a few vague talking points positions, Not Indicted Yet Bob has finally opened his mouth.  

Seizing on the now tired Republican talking point that reducing the price of a gallon of gas by a few pennies eight years in the future (as the Department of Energy estimates might could result from opening the Arctic Refuge) is a "solution," Bob made an appearance this past weekend to embrace oil shale, gas drilling, and the other manacles of last centuries' fuel sources:

The NY Times is reporting that:

Republican opponents are trying to turn the Udall trademark into a black mark. They contend that the Udalls’ resistance to new drilling and to wringing oil out of Rocky Mountain shale has contributed to the energy cost squeeze.

More after the fold...

In 1973, when OPEC imposed its oil embargo, U.S. oil imports composed 30 percent of our needs; today, they make up more than 60 percent, with a growing proportion of that crude coming from the world's least stable regions. At around $145 a barrel, the United States, by my calculations, will spend more on imported oil this year than it will spend on its own defense budget, and much of that money will flow into the coffers of those who wish us ill.

Okay, we know all that, don't we?  So why I am writing about Gal Luft's Washington Post piece Iran and Brazil Can Do It. So Can We.?  Look at the two countries in that title.  Both are in the midst of lots of oil. Israel is near oil-rich but hostile nations.  Iran produces lots of oil but has no meaningful refining capacity.  And both are moving away from gasoline as the primary means of powering transportation.  How they and other countries are doing it is certainly worth our exploration.

I agree with mcjoan that this wasn't the best compromise Democrats could get.  At the same time, the FISA compromise wasn't worth a quixiotic fight, either.  At the end of the day, below the fold is what this election is about:

The arrogance of John McCain when asked about how his military service prepared him for the Presidency is appalling. Not that he cares for his fellow veterans in arms, let alone the wounded warriors in Iraq, who can't even get basic pensions and care.

Who the fuck does John McCain think he is, claiming that the Presidency is somehow his divine right while his fellow veterans are bleeding and suffering? He can brag all he wants to about purpose, as he does in his latest ads, yet the McCain Doctrine is drifting along without purpose while more and more people are dying and suffering in Iraq.

As We Celebrate Our Independence, It Is Time for Energy Independence.

On Friday July 4th we will celebrate Independence Day marking 232 years since our founding fathers declared that the United States of America would be an independent nation.  Back in 1776, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others showed courage, leadership and vision by drafting the Declaration of Independence creating a democratic government based on freedom and rights for the common people.  

Now, 232 years later, we need to see the same courage, leadership and vision from our elected leaders to declare independence again.  In 2008, the independence we need to declare is not from tyrannical leaders and an oppressive government but energy independence from foreign sources that have too much control over a product that is so vital to our nation.

I have an SUV that I bought some years ago.  I don't drive much, since I've been unemployed by the housing market crash, yet there are many folks here who rail against these vehicles.  Therefore, I proposed the following radical idea in rough outline, in hopes that some can fill in the details.  The MSM has had some articles lately stating that owners wanting to trade in their SUVs cannot pay off their loans with the proceeds.

Obama - whose energy independence/climate change plan is one I (almost) fully support - has been known to stump for "clean coal" technology. In fact "low emission coal plants" are written write into his presidential platform.

The entire idea of "clean coal" lies mainly on the ability to capture and store the massive amounts of greenhouse gas produced by coal-fired electrical generation plants in the ground.

I've been so busy getting on top of this teaching gig that I've been letting the blogging slide.

OTOH, while I cycled an insane 14 miles to work (and then back) the second half of last year when I was lucky enough to get called in ... now I am cycling a perfectly sane 3 miles.

So just some random observations on a special midweek edition of Saturday Bike Blogging.

I came across this article a moment ago. After months of liking the former President less and less, this is the type of thing that will make me like him again. I've always thought that, despite all the misdeeds he had committed during his wife's campaign, in about a year I'd love Bill Clinton once again. He will campaign his heart out for Obama, make it clear that he isn't looking for 2012 and another shot, and get back to substance. This is a good place to start.

He spoke at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Miami. He told the mayors that they would have to play a large role in greening their cities, something he has been a part of with the Clinton Climate Initiative. He said:

I think if we do it right, it will be the major engine of growth and new jobs in America for at least a decade.

I want to see the only Democratic president elected to two terms since FDR rehabilitate his image. I want to see the President under which I grew up rebuild his legacy (I was 12 when he left office.) I want Pres. Clinton to once again be an elder statesman of the party and the country.

It seems to be a common talking point among some folks in the conservative blogosphere that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will solve all our nation's energy woes, thus lowering the price of a gallon of gas.

However, this myth that some on the right would have the rest of us believe is just that - a myth.  Despite their best attempts to paint drilling in places like ANWR as a panacea to all our nation's energy woes, the reality of the situation is much different, according to energy forecasters within the federal government (emphasis mine):

After the first OPEC oil embargo of 1973 – a time when I was working in the U.S. Senate – I heard one Senator ask another, "Why don’t we develop a long range plan to put America on the road to energy independence right now, so we don’t have to suffer a day when oil is finally running out and the price is going through the ceiling?"

Did hell just freeze over?  I'm watching former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) speaking on MSNBC right now with Andrea Mitchell, and the first thing that came out of his mouth on energy independence sounded like one of us talking!!

He didn't say the words "Apollo-style program", but he did say we needed to invest in all types of renewable energies, including nuclear (which is something we do need to do, folks, like it or not).  He admitted that Congress had only been "nibbling" around the edges in combating our addiction to oil, and that we needed to go big to really become more energy independent.

And then, you had former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) diss Obama's idea for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.  Of course, given that it's Louisiana, I'm not sure you could find a current or former statewide elected official in that state come out in favor of a windfall profits tax on Big Oil.

Oh, then the discussion turned to evangelicals, and Lott reverted back to what we're accustomed to.

I want to first thank gmoke  for an amazing diary, it inspired me to finally write my first.I also want to agree with him that energy independence at an individual level is achievable and preferable in places like the Midwest where wind or solar are readily available, relatively cost effective, and where extending grids to individual households over the vast distances is just using up valuable resources. However, as he and other posters note, human demographics simply do NOT operate in that way.  Energy independence is a misleading farce, and read my diary to see more about why.

We are in the midst of choosing a nominee for the Democratic Party who, if elected, would serve as President from the years 2009-2013.

You read that right, we are electing a president for the years after most science fiction stories we grew up with were set. We're talking beyond the Terminator and Beyond the Thunderdome.

And, yes, I have a problem thinking that Hillary Clinton, a candidate shaped by the 1992 Presidential election and the Health Care failure of 1994, and John McCain a candidate whose career was shaped by the Savings in Loan crisis and the Keating Five, represent anything other than more of the same.

In fact, given the Gas Tax Gimmick that both of them are promoting, I tend to agree with John Edwards, if you want the status quo, Hillary Clinton is your candidate.

There's a problem with that...we don't have time to waste.