Not that I consider the Dems “good” in any absolute sense, but they’re vastly better than the Reps, who are literally destroying this country and trying to destroy the world.

“The point is to get a useful bill that helps with energy prices, climate, and energy independence.”

The only way this is possible is by electing Obama and extending the Dem majorities. That’s why the Dems’ only legislative priority pre-election should be to position themselves for the election.

After a victorious outcome will be the time for substantive legislation.

BTW, “energy independence” is possible only at a vastly lower level of energy consumption. The way pols and pundits throw it around, implying (and in most cases probably believing) that it’s possible to achieve energy autarchy and still maintain this level of consumption, and keep it growing exponentially, is silly, just a vapid and demagogic talking point.

But, like I said above, we should still use that talking point for general consumption and not be prissy about it.

The point isn’t to come up with a poison pill bill to get a talking point for the next election. The point is to get a useful bill that helps with energy prices, climate, and energy independence. It’s not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, it’s a matter of incumbants vs. challengers when most voters are angry about one or more of: gas prices, energy prices, climate change, depending on OPEC oil, and they see a “do-nothing” Congress as a big part of the problem.

If the majority party only allows a bill with high taxes and minimal drilling, it won’t pass. Not only that, but it will backfire on the Democrats right before the election because it will be real easy for the Republicans to explain why they didn’t vote for it. “Tax increases”, “tax that will be passed to you at the pump”, “Gas tax increase”, etc. Sound too nuanced for the voters to grasp?

There’s already a compromise plan from the Gang of 10, including a number of Republican Senators, with oil company tax provisions, drilling, renewable tax credits, and so on. The majority party needs to present that as one of the options. If the actual bill is too far from that in ways the Republicans would object to, the Republicans on the Gang of 10 will reject it, and it will be obvious why. It won’t be hard to explain at all.

If the bill is close enough to the Gang of 10 plan, the Republicans in the Gang should go for it. Then, if the rest of the Republicans like Hutchison don’t go for it …. only then do you have your hammer to clobber those Republicans in November.

Then if I was any Democrat, but especially Obama, I’d hammer, I’d clobber the message – “They said they wanted drilling, but they voted against it. Now you see how they were lying to you all along, how it was just partisan political game-playing with them, while we actually tried to do something about energy imports and prices.”
(It’s unfortunate, but the way things are, I’d feel I didn’t have the luxury of being overly scrupulous about that last piece of demagoguery.)

For once we’d put them in the position of having to try to make a “nuanced” argument: Yes, we do want to vote for drilling, but this bill was flawed, it didn’t enable enough drilling, blah blah blah……

Because of the uncertainty of the Renewable Energy Tax Credits being extended, the owner of the company indicated to me that it is unlikely that the plant will remain in the US. If it does leave, it’ll probably go to China.

Hey Congress, who’s not connecting the dots?