Good on them!

Um, call me crazy, but isn’t the price of gas outside the stated pants-wetting, save-us-all purview of Freedom’s Watch? Or have they given up all pretense of being anything other than the Republican Party under a different tax number?

Maybe they can call their telecom and Big Oil donors for help.

but they need to be replaced by a progressive, not a republican

This is good lets see after the election just how much power Freedom Watch and Karl Rove really have because if they can’t stop our guys then the country is moving Left.
Except for all those regular people the MSM pundits always seem to find as appeals to Authority to justify positions they have always held. I suspect that these people quoted are imaginary.

If not imaginary, then scripted.

Just how desperate is Rove that after how many years of the GOP fighting a war for oil that now they GOP has to blame us for their failures?
The voters have always paid attention to gas prices and all those rich GOP SUV owners getting 15-25 miles per gallon have to be thinking of jumping ship after all they gave Bush two terms and gas is still high. Blame and more excuses won’t cut it this time.

Brilliant! Hope it works.

How about this little scam. Are the U.S. refiners selling products to other countries, then buying it back at inflated prices? Remember there was a British company doing that by adding ethanol to gas in the U.S. then taking it back to England to get subsidies.

“That chart shows the monthly totals of crude exported in 1,000 barrels. For example in April 2008 the US exported 52,612 X 1,000, or roughly 52.6 million barrels of crude per month.

My guess is there are probably treaties or trade agreements with most of those countries that dictate how much oil we export to them.

What’s interesting is if you click on the “View History, 1981-2006” next to the totals you get a picture of the trend in US oil exports. In 1981 the US exported 2.2 billion barrels of oil annually. In 2007 that number was 5.1 billion barrels annually.

Now go back and look at the monthly totals of oil export for 2008. In February08 crude hit a record high (since dwarfed). Notice how US exports increased 10 million BPD from January to February? Did the price of crude drop due to US oil companies adding an additional 10 million barrels of crude to the market? Market theory says is should have. Increased supply = lower cost.

Ok, a single month isn’t sufficient to make an impact. So let’s look at long term. Since 1981 US oil companies have more than doubled the amount of crude it puts on the world market. Just between 2000 & 2007 there’s been an increase from 3.8 billion to 5.1 bbls annually (roughly 26% increase).”

http://community.cnhi.com/eve/…..097741/p/4

I wonder if Rove cares that much? He’s got lucritive opportunities with Fox and as an author. I doubt the fate of the GOP matters much to him.

i’ve got some problems with this analysis.

first:

i think allen and kagen both voted for the paa extension on feb 13 – defeat of which was key to derailing passage of bond/rockefeller’s s.2248 in feb.

also, neither of them were co-sponsors to holt’s H.R.3782.

should they really be on the list of defenders of good fisa legislation? doesn’t look that way to me – unless there is inside info that they were part of the group of representatives who blocked passage of the leadership’s RESTORE ACT in october – forcing acceptance of Holt’s amendment before passage in november.

did i miss something?

second:

the Iraq war and the saber rattling aimed at Iran that national security experts say has added more than TWO DOLLARS to the price at the pump.

can you please give links? what national security experts said this and what is their analysis? i’d sure like to see it, because so far i’ve not been able to find any persuasive analysis that leads to this conclusion.

third:

is it possible that BOTH republicans AND democrats want us to ignore what they’ve both done to deregulate (and/or prevent effective regulation of) energy markets? if this is the case, we shouldn’t fall for it.

however, Freedom’s Watch does suck. on that we most definitely agreee.

Victory matters to Karl and right now the Democrats are running not against McCain but against Bush, Rove and everything they stand for and we are winning. That has got to hurt Karl knows that if McCain loses all that talk about Bush’s brain will disappear.

is it possible that BOTH republicans AND democrats want us to ignore what they’ve both done to deregulate (and/or prevent effective regulation of) energy markets?

Ding.

Rove seems to have just enough distance from McCain to make it McCain’s (and not Rove’s) fault if McCain loses. The Brain will remain.

This is the kind of push back we need to convince the Democratic Party to do. The Blue Lap Dogs lack of push back is something we can use to nail them with during and after the election. Where were they on FISA where were they on stopping torture? On impeaching Bush?
Where were the Blue Lap Dogs on St Crispin’s Day!
Getting a belly rub from Bush?

Freedom’s Watch has called me at least two times in the past couple of months.
Funny thing is that I’m sitting next to a loud air conditioner and didn’t get all that was said, just enough to know it was a bunch of wingnut hooey.
Here is a robocall that ran in June in another state and the one I got was similar.
Or maybe here.

That is his hope but still if the GOP loses even if Rove is not blamed then he will be forgotten, Rove will never be a star again. His best hope would be to be the unconvicted, unindicted member of the Bush administration who defends Bush on the news.
Think Pat Buchanan but uglier

OT, and haven’t been around much the last couple of days, so forgive repetition (if it is). Just got “Out of Office AutoReply: New Yorker Cover Illustration” email in response to my FDL auto-create letter dealie:

“Thank you for writing. We appreciate your comments and, if you have a question, we’ll do our best to respond. However, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply to every e-mail individually.

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall— all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will also see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside—Hendrik Hertzberg’s Comment, (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg) and Ryan Lizza’s 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate’s political education and rise in Chicago (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza).”

Well, there you have it.

Pardons should keep him unconvicted.

mad props to Mike Farrell (again!)

howz ’bout a little pushback for Ari, Karl and the other kidz -

* CT-05 Chris Murphy . . mconnolly@newstimes.com (Danbury Times)
* ME-01 Tom Allen . . . letters@bangordailynews.net (Banghor Daily News)
* WI-08 Steve Kagen . . .Green Bay Press Gazette
* NJ-03 John Adler . . .Cherry Hill Courier Post
* NJ-07 Linda Stender . . .South Plainfield Courier News

Anybody hearing about turnout in GA today?

Is Freedom’s Watch just targeting Democratic Party incumbents so far, or candidates like Darcy Burner too? They’ve got a lot of money to spend.

ET

I haven’t heard anything. To be honest, none of the candidates are giving me any reason to vote. I’ll vote for whomever wins (with one exception) this fall.

Regarding your second point

Kilduff: Oil And Saber Rattling Don’t Mix

Every buyer and seller has to factor in the possibility that the Straits of Hormuz might close. Threats about lethal action against Iran increase those concerns.

Thanks for your support. We always appreciate it.

This link from Cillizza’s article should answer your question, gives all the FW targets.

i am not making the argument that saber rattling is playing no role – but the $2/gal claim seems over the top to me, especially as we’ve been hearing this kind of sabe rattling off and on for years.

p.s. the link provides more assertions, but no analysis to back up those assertions.

4. KEY FUNDAMENTAL: This week’s EIA report was enlightening to say the least. US refinery operating rates fell 1.6% to 81.4% of capacity. Read that again. With gasoline prices at record levels, consumers screaming for relief, congressional hearings, and an economy in or heading for recession, refineries are producing gasoline at only 81.4% of their total capacity. That is down more than 10% from just a few months ago. There are several reasons cited for this: An aging (some call antiquated) and inefficient US refinery system, a shortage of MTB (the additive refiners must include in summer gasoline) and shut downs due to seasonal maintenance. All of these could be contributing to US refineries operating at 9% lower capacity than is normal for this time of year. But they are not the main reason. The main reason is that US refineries are deliberately scaling back operations.

Why would US refiners do this? The answer is, of course, money.

http://www.themoneyblogs.com/j…..ction.html

IIRC, according to your terrific analysis, there were only 30 members of the House were solid on FISA.

If we really want to cripple those 30 from getting anything done for their districts, we can withold support from all other Dems.

AFAIK, Kagen comes from a pretty rural district. Lots of Deer Hunters, lots of big paper mills. AFAIK, he’s an M.D., who is really strong on universal health care.

Again, I really appreciate all your work, but imho can maintain a health tension without caving in to the right.

i hope you are serious, because that’s how i meant it – i do strongly support efforts here to hold our representatives accountable. you once (sorry no link without looking) said your readers acted as editors, helping you get the stories right.

OT: HuffPo headline:

MCCAIN’S RESPONSE TO OBAMA WAR SPEECH: “I KNOW HOW TO WIN WARS”

In exactly which wars, Sanator McCain, did you even fight on the winning side?

I laughed out loud when I saw that. What an idiot he is.

Supply-side economics. The Republicans are trickling down on us.

Crashing 5 planes and getting captured makes him a war expert of course.

Thanks for the link. Does this mean that Freedom’s Watch has given up on Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who is in a very close race with Democrat Mark Begich?

ET

Blue Texan is upstairs!
Bush & McCain On The Economy, Gas Prices: Psychic Friends

Don’t have a link for that, but I’ll guess FW doesn’t want to be caught supporting a Senator who is liable to be indicted any time now…JMO.

i have no problem or objection with using a different criteria than the one i used – which was, after all, just a proposal. would love to see other criteria and the rational for their use. but right now it’s not obvious to me what the criteria being used is.

if the issues i raised were because i’m misinformed or my analysis is flawed, i’d really love to be challenged on it so i don’t stay misinformed.

If the Straits of Hormuz close, it will be a lot more than $2/gallon.

Straits of Hormuz from wikipedia

It is cited that between 20%[2][3] and 40%[4][5] of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait, making it one of the world’s strategically important chokepoints.

If FIVE years ago, we had supported Iraq instead of invading, helped them rebuild their oil infrastructure, how much would that be impacting world supply today? I have no idea if $2 is accurate, but it sure doesn’t sound too high to me.

From a national security perspective Bush’s idiot policies have awakened the US to our dependence on foreign oil. A more enlightened foreign policy five years ago, might have simply enabled the worst excesses of oil thirsty life styles.

I think the question is what were the criteria for the choice of those 5 Representatives in particular.

oh man – the straits close, the sky’s the limit. and, as hugh as been pointing out, they don’t need to be physically closed… just considered dangerous enough that shipping can’t be insured.

but why would today’s saber rattling be affecting the market in ways that last year’s weren’t? have the price spikes tracked with fluctuations in saber rattling?

We chose them because they were absolutely perfect on FISA, just like I said in my post.

They’re progressive candidates getting FW’s robocalls. It’s a rebuttal.

If saber rattling were the major determiner of price, you would expect to see prices to rise during a saber rattling episode but then to decline back to baseline after the episode was finished and shown to have had no effect on supply. This is not what has been happening.

We chose them because they were absolutely perfect on FISA, just like I said in my post.

What does it mean in your book to be absolutely perfect on FISA? Did they vote against the PAA? Did they co-sponsor Holt’s bill? Did they vote against the PAA extension? And the FISA Amendments Act?

doesn’t perfect (wrt fisa) include voting against the paa extension on feb 13, 2008? or at least co-sponsoring holt’s bill in oct 2007?

that’s why i don’t understand what you mean by perfect.

btw, i’m not trying to argue here that only perfect representatives should ever be supported. that would give us very few to support.

You are imho a rare gift to this community, because you do so much actual work. Then you share it freely with everyone here.

My guess is that Jane’s criteria is in her instincts.

In January 2006, everyone told her she was nuts to support Lamont and his 9% name recognition in CT. Now we’ve got Harry Reid, Carl Levin, and others dropping in for chats.

FISA’s gone, we got our butts kicked.

The looming issues for me, are how much we let the fabulously wealthy socialize their paper losses and keep their real profits. We liberals desperately need help on that.

I love your work and hope you keep posting.

I guess I just want to put out an alternative narrative.

FWIW, on FISA, one of the worst imho was Sen. Herb Kohl. He’s an older fabulously rich guy in WI. Why he had to run so fast over to the Bush admin on FISA is something I don’t get.

OT

video of Barack’s speech this morning at MSNBC (great quality audio, 36 minutes):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..0#25689940

In January 2006, everyone told her she was nuts to support Lamont and his 9% name recognition in CT.

boo – if jane can convince someone who’s never done any canvassing and doesn’t even live in CT to spend weekends and the days before both the primary and the general election in CT canvassing for lamont – well let’s just say her powers of persuasion are off the chart.

p.s. i was one of those someones – and my only regret is that i didn’t spend more time volunteering.

I don’t know.

I also don’t know where the $2/gallon comes from.

How much does the price go down if the Iraqi oil fields, north (Kurds) and south (Shia) are pumping at full capacity?

I’m ignorant on the details of how oil futures handle the Straits of Hormuz. I am sure, however, that forecasts about Iraqi production figures into it. The fact that US oil companies received the Iraqi bids has probably pushed prices up.

Selise and Hugh:
I don’t know if you guys are angry in general, upset with Jane for some reason or if that’s just accidental word choice giving me that impression, but it really seems to be an attack on Jane’s judgment here. Demanding that she give more info is a bit disrespectful. If there’s a particular reason for not liking one of the choices on her list, express it, please, but I don’t think making demands is the kind of challenge Jane was talking about.

Thanks very much for your work on behalf of Ned.

I’m very sorry I was unable to go.

I remember scarecrow going.

It’s none of my biz, but, were you posting here back then?

It’s none of my biz, but, were you posting here back then?

i think almost all my comments (except for a bit during the blogspot to wordpress conversion) are available to the google.

but to spare you the search – yes. kathryn in ma, revdeb, scarecrow and i were the MA irregulars who spent a lot of time going to CT to volunteer – at first to support jane’s efforts and then also to support lamont.

i think i may have started commenting here sometime in 2005? i was even the first person to organize (at pach’s suggestion) a visit to senators’ offices in support of fdl lobbying for feingold’s censure resolution. it was jane and christy who got me first interested, and then active in following and taking action on the issue of the bush administration’s violation of fisa. it’s only natural after all this time and personal involvement that we would all have very passionately held views on the issue.

Demanding that she give more info is a bit disrespectful.

The left side of the blogosphere is supposed to be the fact based one. What part of this do you have difficulty understanding? Information and requests for information are not the enemy.

Thanks for helping Chris Murphy. He’s been getting this right-wing clap trap aimed at him re: “Patriot Act commercials”.

Hugh, Going to someone’s blog and demanding they do more work is over the top. Stomping your foot and demanding “Explain yourself!” as if she were an errant teenager is also over the top. Providing info refuting what they’re saying isn’t. Disagreeing isn’t. Especially where Jane–who is working her ass of for us–is concerned, a polite “Please” would help. Like I said, perhaps it’s just accidental word choice, but that’s the way it seemed to me and given Jane’s terse response, perhaps she read it that way too.

I wish you had phonebanked at the same office as me, calling certain *cough* neighborhoods.

You have a peculiar attitude. Perhaps you could explain to me how it differs from that one would expect on right wing blogs where the point is only about who can agree most vociferously and where facts are not allowed. If we can not apply the same standards of analysis to ourselves that we apply to the right, then we have no rational basis for expecting anyone to believe anything we say.

Thanks.

I was commenting under a different pseudonym back then.

I recommended your FISA diary over at Kos and I was glad to see emptywheel mention it here The FISA Loss

There are some “left-wing” blogs too where dittoheadism is expected. I think the last thing any of us should become is dittoheads.

Going to someone’s blog and demanding they do more work is over the top.

i don’t think that’s what i did.

in fact just the opposite. that was the bit i was trying to help with. here and here and here.

This is precisely the antagonism I’ve noticed from you lately that is so objectionable. Are you saying it’s impossible to disagree or refute a position without being rude to the host? Because you ignored my point that Jane shouldn’t be made to feel like you disapprove of the job she’s doing when you disagree is somehow demanding you be a “dittohead”? Why are you being obtuse about this unless you mean to be antagonistic?

thanks! i was very sorry to miss the conversation at marcy’s (almost no fdl access from saturday morning until this morning). but i’m glad you liked the diary (actually there were two – i couldn’t fit everything into one) – and i do welcome corrections, etc. in fact if you take another look today, you will see i’ve updated them to reflect good criticisms i received.

i’m confused. how is disagreement rude? what did i (or anyone) write that was rude?

Audrey, fwiw, I appreciate your sentiments. IMHO, you may have voiced them a bit too sharply.

FWIW, I also have immense respect for Hugh and selise. They are long time commenters here. Also, they frequently bring solid arguments, backed up with links. A lot of us don’t do that. Furthermore, they are both just flat out a lot smarter than I am.

It’s my problem, but when I see Hugh and selise disagreeing with Jane, it’s painful. Again, that’s my problem.

When I came to FDL, I didn’t have a clue. My intellectual debt to Jane, Christy, and emptywheel is unfathomable. I wouldn’t know about people such as Hugh and selise and many, many others, if it were not for Jane.

I would like to see Hugh’s “concerns” to Jane made with a touch more diplomacy, but this has been going on for some time. I doubt that will happen. I think it’s a health tension among liberals as long as we remain united on a pragmatic strategy. That’s not nearly as easy as it sounds.

If you’re politically impotent, being moral isn’t enough, unless you want to be a martyr. If gaining political leverage means making deals with the devil, torture, institutional genocide, it’s not much good either.

This blog has given Jane, Christy, and emptywheel some political leverage. That also puts limits on them, that didn’t used to exist. I am very comfortable giving Jane, Christy, and Marcy plenty of slack.

Laura Flanders has another GRITtv installment upstairs!
Media Roundtable: The Politics of Satire at the New Yorker, Fannie and Freddie, and the US in Iran

If Jane feels like she wants or needs to defend her views, she can. I really don’t think she needs you to do that for her. FDL has been a fairly freewheeling place in the years I have been here. I suggest you look up some of Jane’s old posts to see just how rude she can be when she wants to. Also when you start looking at the facts as being antagonistic, it is probably a good time to re-examine your premises.

i did very little phone banking in CT. i’d rather go door-to-door during a heat wave (which i did do the week before the primary).

i never learned to like phone banking and only did it (for example w/ moveon) when canvassing wasn’t feasible.

Ok. This is silly. Selise, by your word choices in the first post, the way I read it is: “Bad job, Jane.” I included you in my address to Hugh because: I have noticed it since the primary campaign that there is a sharp dismissive tone in your posts. I’m bringing it to your attention because you may not realize it and it is offensive. I wouldn’t even bother taking it up if I didn’t value the work both you and Hugh have done. I’ve been here all along and you’ve made a tremendous contribution to the netroots but I’m dismayed by the tone of the posts lately.

Hope this helps.

My intellectual debt to Jane, Christy, and emptywheel is unfathomable

me too. and hugh and many others here. i only learned about following congress on the fisa issue from pow wow (who sadly doesn’t comment here any more – but can be found at glenn’s) and other fdl commenters during last august’s fisa debacle.

*Sigh* Hugh: I read for a long time at Blogspot but didn’t start commenting until Rayne talked about how to take political action and Mary started posting her legal analyses. So, I don’t need to look it up. And when I tell you the tone of your posts has changed lately, just reflect on it, ok? If you decide that I’m wrong in my assessment, fine. I’ll just shut up about it. I addressed this here because the thread was done and I’m tired of the testiness. We need to have each other’s back and if I choose to defend Jane, that’s my choice too. (I would also stick up for both of you if I thought you were unfairly treated.)

Boo, you’re right. Absolutely. And this is the point I was trying to make:

This blog has given Jane, Christy, and emptywheel some political leverage. That also puts limits on them, that didn’t used to exist. I am very comfortable giving Jane, Christy, and Marcy plenty of slack.

Exactly.

I’ve been here since practically the beginning and have communicated mostly by email but only sporadically here in the comments. What I didn’t say, and perhaps should have is that it feels like I know you all and consider this my family. I’ve made an effort to be more visible so people know who I am, but it doesn’t work well for me. Thanks for understanding.

I appreciate your comments Audrey.

Thank you, Boo. That helps. :)

I’m very pleased to hear that Blue America is taking on Freedom’s Watch.

Thanks for the update Jane.

- Tom

ps. Mike Farrell’s a great guy. Is Alan Alda politically active? I’d love to see the cast of M*A*S*H take them on.

i never said “bad job” – or meant that. i think i just meant what i said to begin with- that i had a problem with the analysis, and asked if i had missed something. if you sense some frustration – i think that is fair, because i have asked before without getting an answer. but i figured that was just because no one in the know had seen my questions and/or the analysis we’ve been doing in the comments. that was one of (the many) reasons i wrote those dkos diaries – to be a reference for what happened wrt fisa in the house during the year. but in no way did i mean to imply “bad job” – and i don’t think i did.

…. regarding my tone. the past year has been an eye opening experience for me – watching what our congress has done with the democratic majority they won in 2006. so, yes i think you are correct to say that my tone has changed and that i have a dismissive attitude towards many of the dems in congress. if that is what is bothering you, i’m sorry you find that objectionable. but i’m not going to make excuses for what i think is inexcusable.

with regards to my fellow commenters, with one exception (where i do plead guilty) i don’t think my tone is dismissive, certainly not anywhere close to the standard jane sets for her blog. but if you think otherwise, i invite you to point out my objectionable statements – the actual words i use – that you object to and i will try to reconsider.