Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Annals of irritants, part four

Press peddles Republican talking points on energy bill

Posted by David Roberts at 11:43 AM on 16 Dec 2007

Read more about: politics | legislation | energy

I'm seeing this kind of thing all over the place:

Faced with stiff Republican opposition that is backed by Bush's veto threat, Democrats made misstep after misstep in trying to pass this energy bill. It was too ambitious. It tried to force utilities to increase production of renewable energy in the face of fierce opposition by the utility industry group, and it included a tax package that the White House has long indicated it would not support.

Second, Republicans also felt like they were left out of the negotiating process in reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., complained bitterly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had assembled the bill with Democratic leaders behind closed doors. A final mistake may have been angering Domenici himself. The top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Domenici's opinion carries significant weight on energy matters, and within the last week, he has waged a campaign to defeat the bill in its most recent form.

To put it as calmly as possible, this makes me want to put my fist through my monitor.

First ... "missteps"? What are these missteps, exactly? Well, there was crafting a good piece of legislation that has the support of a large majority of Americans and a large majority in Congress. That was a real blunder.

Then there was failing to water the bill down, in advance, to something that would fit within the narrow parameters set out by the White House and its Congressional lickspits. What a goof up!

Why reporters like Brian Wingfield reflexively cast this as a story of Democratic mistakes rather than Republican obstructionism and blind fealty to fossil fuel contributors, I will never know. But he's certainly not alone. It's just a tic for national press. When Dems were in the minority, this kind of thing was unforgivable interference with the majority. Now that Dems are in the majority, it's still their mistake, for introducing good legislation with majority support.

Secondly, excuse me, but Republicans are whining that they were "left out of the negotiations"? Are ... you ... kidding me. They're the ones who blocked the $@#^* conference committee! They were explicitly invited to "the negotiations" and they tried to shut the whole process down. Now they're whining? And do they even remember how they behaved as the majority just a few short years ago?

And finally, I'm sorry, but "angering Domenici"? If this wasn't a family website, I would tell Petro Pete Domenici exactly where he could shove his pique. He's been duplicitous throughout this entire process, scheming at every turn to purge the bill of support for renewable energy. First he maneuvered for months to destroy the Renewable Energy Standard, despite being from a state that already has an RES and stands to profit handsomely from renewable energy. (For his efforts he's been well-remunerated.) Even after the RES was gone, he still voted Nay on the energy bill, protecting his fossil backers' subsidies trying to "save the energy bill from a likely veto by President Bush." Meanwhile he's been frantically attempting to shove nuclear subsidies in the energy bill, the farm bill, and now the omnibus spending bill.

Domenici's "anger" is a bit of kabuki theater that too many reporters fell for. It's not his anger that's dictated his votes, its his fealty to dirty energy.

Better stories, please.

Media...

It's typical. Sometimes it can be something which comes out biased from the wording alone, but obviously there's more blatant stuff like this. There was a recent AFP article about Bali that used phrasing along the lines of changes to the wording "allowed" the U.S. to sign on. Maybe that's just poorly written, but it implies that there was no way the U.S. could change its position, when in fact if it weren't for the current administration the U.S. could be "allowed" to sign up for much more ambitious goals. It's misleading. It doesn't place responsibility where it belongs. The media only serves its corporate owners, certainly not the public's need for good information.

Where's the liberal bias?

Reports like this where all over the media. Many seemed to be repeating republican talking points.

Even The News Hour on PBS, normally a very even handed and reliable source, said part of the conflict over the energy bill was about the democrats plan to tax the oil companies, not to repeal the tax breaks they were given.

IOKIYAR

= It's OK If You're A Republican.

Been obvious and well-noted for years. More

Ah, Pete.

But didn't I hear that he's retiring?

I am embarrassed and irritated to have him representing my state.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks