Remember how Hillary immediately began to blame Bush when the blackout occurred in the Northeast? If you don;t, here is a sample of her statements:
King: Governor Richardson and Governor Davis have said that this kind of thing should be preventable. Do you agree?
CLINTON: Absolutely. And of course both of them have firsthand experience over the last several years. And I believe that one of questions that we should answer, because of this, is not only how did it happen, but how is it going to be prevented in the future?
There were a couple of times during the past two and a half years in the Senate when a number of us tried to vote for taking action that would increase reliability within the system to try to protect the transmission systems that move energy from one part of our country to another. To have some more backup. We’ve not been successful up until now, but perhaps now because perhaps we will now be…
King:Senator Clinton, is the federal government on top of this or not?
CLINTON: Well, Larry, I agree with Governor Davis and I know Governor Richardson is very knowledgeable about this as well, that we just haven’t made the kind of national investments that we need, particularly in the transmission system. I happen to think that making sure we have a reliable, affordable system of energy is a national priority. And I don’t think that this administration sees it that way. They have continued to try to push deregulation and privatization, and to try to undo a lot of the systems in changes that many of us thought were important and necessary that we tried to work on during the Clinton administration under Secretary Richardson’s leadership. And frankly to throw in a lot of roadblocks in the way of Governor Davis, when he tried to clean up some of the problems that he had with the manipulation of the energy markets by Enron and others. So, no, I don’t think the federal administration under this president is really focused on making sure we don’t have these problems in the future.
Hillary Clinton, during the blackout doing a live interview with Larry King, 14 August 2003.
The conventional wisdom (from the Democrats in the media and the left flank of the blogosphere) has been that the arrogant Bush team (forget he is President, it is his enrgy bill, and the Senate and the House are Republican) and the evils of the deregulation bogeyman are holding back an upgrade of the power grid- but is that really true? Bill Hobbs checks the lies:
Did President Bush really try to upgrade the national power grid two years ago, in order to prevent massive blackouts like the one that hit much of the northeastern quadrant of the nation last week? And did Democrats and environmentalists prevent him from doing so? Yes, absolutely, yes, says the New York Times. [Hat tip: Kevin Patrick]
Ambitious Bush Plan Undone by Energy Politics
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JEFF GERTH
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 – President Bush stood at a gasoline station near his ranch in Texas today and said he had been calling for an energy bill to modernize the nation’s electricity grid “for a long time.”Mr. Bush is quite right. A comprehensive energy policy was part of his platform as a candidate for president and seemed prescient from his very first week in office, when he was forced to ensure there was enough power in California to ease the state’s rolling blackouts. By May 2001, largely because of the California crisis, Mr. Bush had released his energy plan.
But the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan. Although the policy included recommendations to improve the nation’s electric grid that everyone agreed on, they were lost in the shouting and have been dormant in Congress for the past two years.
Methinks this really ought to be pointed out in Bush campaign ads running in the blackout zone.
Me too, Bill. Before I finish this post, I can’t pass up pointing out Hillary’s latest whopper:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton told ABC’s “World News Tonight” last Thursday that the lights at her Chappaqua, N.Y., mansion went out along with everyone else’s when the big blackout hit.
But moments later during the same interview, Clinton contradicted herself and admitted that she was “one of the fortunate ones” who still had power, thanks to a Secret Service generator on her property.
“No, the lights aren’t on,” Clinton initially told ABC’s Ted Koppel, who asked during their telephone chat if she still had power “up there.”
After listening to the top Democrat expound for a few minutes on the vagaries of nuclear power and why she thought the collapse of Enron should have been a warning sign, Koppel revisited the question, asking, “Well, has the Secret Service got a nice generator for backup power? Or are you handling it on candles tonight?”
With that Sen. Clinton came clean and admitted she was enjoying full power.
“Well, no, they do. I’m one of the fortunate ones,” she offered, without skipping a beat. “Because of all of the equipment and the communications, that is something that they can count on to keep essential services going.”
Koppel pretended not to notice Hillary’s earlier fib about being left without lights, noting only, “Well, the neighbors will be coming over for that cup of sugar later on.”
How can you tell when Hillary Clinton is lying…
Ralph Gizzip
…because her lips are moving.
M. Scott Eiland
Vintage Shrillary, on both counts–at least she didn’t drag Chelsea into her self-aggrandizing lying on this occasion.
Kimmitt
There is, of course, more to it than that. Bush’s energy plan included some things which needed to be done (the power upgrades) and some extremely controversial items (drilling in ANWR). When the bill died due to its controversial parts, the Dems introduced a bill which only included the upgrades, but Bush and his allies in the Congress insisted on attaching an ANWR rider to it, and it failed again.
What’s the lesson here? It was more important for Bush to try and fail to get drilling access in ANWR than it was for him to take care of our basic infrastructure needs. Even after he lost the ANWR fight twice, he still did not call it a day and take care of the basic good government items.
John Cole
The reverse can also be stated, Kimmitt-
It is more important to Democrats to continue their feckless quasi-religious ANWR drilling ban than it is for them to take care of the ‘basic good government items.’
Kimmitt
That would make sense if the Dems hadn’t introduced the good-government legislation separately from anything involving ANWR.
There’s no Democratic or Republican way to take out the garbage, and tying up garbage collection with controversial items is the essence of government in favor of special interests instead of the people.
BigScaryBrain
To the people living in ANWR the drilling is not controversial, they’re all for it.
And who in the hell believes that not looking for new sources of petroleum in the states is not good government. The democrats are going to continue to keep us in the clutches of Saudi Arabia for much longer than need be. This is not oil drilling 1930’s style the technology and ecology involved have greatly improved.
To give you an idea of how Democratic evironmentalism works, let’s review. The world’s largest supply of the cleanest burning type of coal was placed off limits by the Clinton administration in a land grab in Utah. So guess who has control of the second largest supply of the same type of coal in the world? That’s correct! If you said Indonesian billionaire and all around Clinton buddy James Riady give yourself a gold star.
So peddle that lame shit somewhere else.
HH
This is up there with her contradicting her own daughter on where she was on Sept. 11th… actually it’s probably worse since she contradicted herself.
M. Simon
This may be a problem unrelated to energy supples, government regulation, envro whackos, and the rest of the usual suspects.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/19/simon.htm
David Perron
Once again, shockingly, I find myself in agreement with Kimmitt. If two things are good ideas, and one is not a necessary condition for the implementation of the other, making passage of one conditional on passage of the other is just an attempt at putting a full nelson on your opponent.
Quit the fucking political maneuvering and get it done. Why do we have to pass up good legislation because of stuff like this?
That said, I’m a proponent of drilling in ANWR. I think it’s worth doing, and from what I’ve seen the environmental impact will be next to nothing.
John Cole
avid:
A.) because that is how things work in Washington.
B.) Because it is the only way to get the will of the majority through- remember, we control both Houses and the Executive, and still can not get things through. That is the shame.
C.) IF we had to pass an idividual law for every thing that happened, we would never get anywhere.
Kimmitt
Fine and dandy, but if you could get outside the partisan mindset long enough to pass legislation which would have prevented an EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR BLACKOUT WHICH SHUT DOWN FIVE MAJOR CITIES FOR TWO DAYS, we’d be obliged to you.
You lost ANWR. We lost nationalized health care when we had all three branches of power. It happens. Quit your pathetic whining and get the basics taken care of.
John Cole
A.) There is absolutely no evidence that any action on the bill last year would have come in time to prevent the black-out, so quit the bullshit. I know it is hard for you to get out of the partisan mindset, but this is simply not an issue that can be pinned on Republicans.
B.) You also lost Nationalized Health Care because about 70% of the public was against it.
C.) I was not whining- you are when you try to pin this on on political issue (not to mention, even if I were, it is my site and I can do what I damn well please).
D.) Every bill has some good and some bad from both parties political perspective. pretending otherwise shows ho naive you really are- and how the religion of environmentalism trumps reason over and over again within the Democrat party.
John Cole
I meant political party, not political issue under point C.
David Perron
Kimmitt, are you really blaming the blackout on Republicans? I just want to know if I’m getting your drift, here.
John, I think passing ANWR is a big enough thing to put all by itself. Just my opinion, of course, but you have to look at the intent behind lumping it with other bills that everyone agrees we need. I think it makes Republicans look manipulative, doing that. And I’m a Republican.
John Cole
Of course it is manipulative- you have to resort to this sort of behavior when a minority in the Senate and the House can block any and all legislation that does not fit their religious beliefs.
this is neither nothing new, or nothin particularly pernicious, and calls for it to end are laughably naive. Try to cout how many bills went through during the previous administration in which the Republicans bit the bullet and passed even though the Democrats had used popular measures attached to unpopular ones in order to advance their agenda- and they were in the MINORITY except for 92-94.
Kimmitt
Kimmitt, are you really blaming the blackout on Republicans? I just want to know if I’m getting your drift, here.
Yes and no. I’m blaming the blackout on a poorly-maintained set of transmission lines and stations which allowed a minor power failure in Ohio to turn into a huge multistate crash.
What I’m saying is that it could have been prevented and that President Bush (I’m aiming this one at him) and Congressional Republicans who were following his lead found it more important to play politics with ANWR than to get the business of the nation done.
Of course any bill is a result of compromise and craft, especially relatively large ones. But at some point, the buck stops with the folks who declined to get the uncontroversial, necessary parts of government together in favor of using them as bargaining chips for later on. If you play that kind of brinksmanship game, you’re responsible for when the consequences bite you on the ass.
David Perron
So, you’re saying this is a problem that’s just cropped up in the last few years? And that everyone knew about it?
Why, then, did the Democrats not get it taken care of when they were in the majority?
Kimmitt
Um, the Republicans have had the Presidency since 2001. Until 2003, any movement would have had to be bipartisan (the Republicans could have passed the noncontroversial energy grid regulation without assistance in 2003, as they would not have faced significant dissent in the Senate).
If we’re going back before 2001, I’m gonna have to start rechecking my sources, as this is a pretty darn recondite and complex legislative history data set.
David Perron
Hmmm…I guess majority in the Senate doesn’t really get you any free passes. But still, you’d think that something as immediately important as…what? Do you even know what legislation is needed? Whatever. Something as immediately important as whatever-you-think-needs-doing could at least have been passed by Senate Democrats while they were in the majority. Tom Daschle was Majority leader for a decent stretch. Did he introduce such legislation?
There have been a couple of bills introduced this year that contain provisions to determine what modifications to the grid ought to be made. At least one of them was co-authored by a Republican. But I guess Bush is negligent for not having penned one himself, eh?
Kimmitt
I’m looking over legislative history. I expect I’ll be a little while, as this discussion is hardly a paying gig. Thanks for your understanding.
John Cole
I’m looking over legislative history. I expect I’ll be a little while, as this discussion is hardly a paying gig. Thanks for your understanding.
Well, if you come up with a good argument that is well documented and would like to guest post it, let me know, and I will fire it up.
Like I said, I am not afraid of what really is happening- I just hate the spin.
David Perron
Thanks for doing the yeoman’s work, Kimmitt. Google doesn’t always give the complete picture. I’m interested to see what you dig up.
Kimmitt
Okay, here’s what I’m seeing:
In 2001, some kind of modernization was part of the President’s energy package. The package included the controversial ANWR provisions; it passed without ANWR in the Senate and with ANWR in the House, then went to Conference Committee. This is HR 4, 197th Congress.
September 11th took the wind out of everyone’s sails, and it died in committee, despite several compromise attempts. I have no information as to who was lobbying whom for what when here; this is straight-up legislative history.
Sen. Landrieu tried several variants on the theme in 2002, with several bills or amendments. They all died in committee or on the floor. There isn’t much in the House.
In 2003, competing versions of energy bill are introduced in the Senate; some include ANWR (mostly under Sen. Domenici) and some don’t (mostly under Landreau and, interestingly, Sen. Lott). There are similar movements in the House, but the trail is muddier there. I can’t tell if HR6 has an ANWR provision or not, honestly. Plus, there are some ANWR-only bills introduced. All of them either die on the floor or are referred to committee where they currently sit.
This history does not include any anecdotal information regarding the White House’s lobbying attempts.
All information is from thomas.loc.gov , and review is both requested and encouraged.
David Perron
Thanks. That was pretty much where I was looking, too. I found some specific bills introduced this year that had line items for grid modernization, but I had no idea what became of them.
Absent evidence that the White House lobbied for grid upgrades, I guess we’ll have to assume they didn’t. Isn’t that how it works?
erp
I don’t see this is an actual lie. After all, how is she supposed to know what’s happening her “home”? She doesn’t live there and probably hasn’t stepped foot in the building since first days of photo-ops.
I’m sure when in New York, she stays at a nice apartment donated by an adoring fan.
Going into the suburbs? Surely, you jest.
eric
Kimmet…were the transmission lines just fine from 92 to 2000 then just went bad in 2001-2002? If that’s not the case why didn’t slick willy fix it?