Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Offshore Drilling Is Coming to a Vote
Democrats to Offer a Mix of Proposals
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats, balancing political reality against a policy they have long opposed, are on the cusp of approving legislation that would open the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to oil drilling as close as 50 miles offshore.
Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., left, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., center, look on as House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., right, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh) With votes scheduled this week in the House and Senate, Democrats have essentially given up defending the current ban on drilling within 200 miles offshore along both coasts. Instead, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they are offering a mix of proposals that would allow drilling, with the waters off Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia most likely to be the first affected.
Environmentalists and industry analysts disagree over the impact the various legislative proposals would have on oil production, with industry experts contending that the most precious reserves still would be off-limits. But both sides agree that -- because of the politics of $4-a-gallon gasoline this summer and a pending legislative deadline -- the nearly 40-year drilling ban is in jeopardy.
"It's in deep, deep trouble. I won't pronounce it dead, but it's in deep trouble," said Warner Chabot, a vice president of the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group opposed to drilling.
House and Senate Democrats have been assembling different proposals for the past few weeks after absorbing months of Republican criticism as gas prices soared. Under pressure from moderate Democrats fearful of November election losses, Pelosi took the first formal step Wednesday by unveiling a proposal that would open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling at least 100 miles offshore. If governors and state legislatures agree, drilling off each state's coast would be allowed 50 miles from shore.
Pelosi had previously suggested opening only portions of the southeastern Atlantic coast and some of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, but ultimately offered to allow drilling off both coastlines. The eastern gulf off Florida's west coast would remain off-limits.
Under the Pelosi bill, scheduled for a vote Tuesday, the federal government would not share royalties with the states, devoting the money instead toward federal funding for renewable energy resources. Taxes on oil companies would be increased, with that revenue also going to alternative energy sources.
A separate proposal, developed by about 20 Senate Democrats and Republicans, also would move the drilling boundary to 100 miles offshore, with states given the option to set it at 50 miles. But under that plan, new Atlantic drilling would be limited to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Senate plan would allow no drilling in the Pacific.
In a key difference with Pelosi's bill, the Senate legislation would allow new drilling off Florida's west coast.
Some industry experts question the effect of the proposals, citing federal studies that show that more than 80 percent of known oil reserves are inside the 50-mile limit and therefore unavailable. Very little is known about oil reserves beyond 100 miles. Waters off almost the entire Pacific coast -- where all three governors oppose drilling at the 50-mile barrier -- is considered too deep for drilling 100 miles offshore.
"You would just open a door to an empty room at the end of a very long hallway," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, an organization funded by the oil industry. Kennedy also said that, without some sort of revenue sharing for state governments, there would be little incentive for states to approve additional drilling.
With revenue sharing, Virginia and Georgia would quickly approve offshore drilling at the 50-mile mark, Kennedy and some environmental experts predicted. The biggest target for new drilling at the 100-mile mark would be in the Georges Bank, off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, where cod fishing was once the dominant industry. Oil and natural gas already are extracted not far away, in Canadian waters.
The most sought-after area, however, is the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida's western coast. Drilling rigs already operate in the gulf off Houston, New Orleans and Mississippi, giving oil producers a near-certain guarantee of finding oil near Florida. It also would be less costly for producers to move their production and delivery systems to the other side of the gulf than to place new rigs in previously unexplored regions of the Atlantic or Pacific.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has vowed to filibuster any legislation that would open the waters off Florida's western beach resorts, to protect his state's tourism industry and the military testing areas for Navy and Air Force bases in the region. "If they want to get something done, they have to deal with me," Nelson said in an interview Friday.
Republicans have been skeptical about Pelosi's proposal, because environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have endorsed it as "a chance for clean energy gains that would represent a giant step in solving our energy crisis."
Many lawmakers privately predict the energy legislation will stall in parliamentary gridlock, but Congress has its own statutory deadline to deal with by Sept. 30. At that point, the annual congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires. President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling early this summer.
That means Pelosi has barely two weeks to forge a compromise or face the end of the moratorium. That would allow drilling within three miles off all coasts. Faced with such a predicament, Democrats are increasingly likely to add their new drilling legislation to a catchall spending bill that will fund most of the government into next year.
Such a decision would dare Bush to veto the legislation and shut down the federal government over the GOP's preferred drilling plan. But if Republicans accepted the compromise, it would lead to increased offshore oil drilling under the watch of a Democratic Congress, a concept that was unfathomable just six weeks ago.



98 Comments so far
Show AllMore corporate law making. Where's my electric car! Where's the money for solar panels for my home! And the money doesn't even go to the states involved! It goes right back to the Feds, who will hand it over to big oil again! And if we don't agree to this we get drilling everywhere!
You would think that Congress had learned its lessons of Louisiana. All that oil drilling offshore has resulted in weaker soil. At this rate, LA will be sinking faster. Mayor Ray Nigen was correct when he pointed out that GOD IS PUNISHING AMERICA with hurricanes. I'm pretty sure the same thing is likely to happen to coastal states engaging in offshore drilling. I would go further than Nigen and say that GOD is indeed punishing America and has in fact done so for decades after the ban on Cannabis, the plant of peace, took effect. Mark my words:
GOD WILL SEVERELY PUNISH AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR MORE OFFSHORE DRILLING !!!
Because of our militaristic foreign policy, American oil companys are locked out from much of the best, and cheapest to drill. Primarily in the Middle East and Africa. If not so, they would have little interest in costly off shore and tundra drilling. Gas prices will have to be kept high to justify the more expensive off shore and tundra oil.
Democrats got an earful of what would happen to their reelection chances if they did NOT drill
GOD WILL SEVERELY PUNISH AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR MORE OFFSHORE DRILLING !!!
I thought you guys didn't believe in God?
Yeah, I know. It sucks that the American public lacks the ability to critically think. Otherwise the republicans would be worried about their reelection chances for advocating drilling.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
You progressives tell me all the time how forward thinking you are...and then you tell me we aren't going to get any oil out of offshore or ANWR for 10 years...doesn't it make sense to start now so we aren't up shits creek in 10 years like we are now?
if Clinton had ok'd this in the 90's we wouldn't be in a crisis right now
I recall Mccain not supporting it back in the 1990s. Too bad BIG OIL stuffed his pockets this decade. There's not really much oil left unless one were to count the sour heavy type and then you'd be left with less usable oil, more expensive, and poor quality. Besides, it will be at least a few years before any oil out of it gets put to use. And by then, the price of oil will likely be around 200-300 a barrel which means very little. It's all nothing but a political stunt that has no bearing on the economy and more environmental damage. But the Republicans and Democrats are tied to Big Oil and must be dismantled.
He didn't support it at $2 a gal gas...$4 a gal and I think we ALL support it
I can't verify it because Mccain's been doing too much flip-flopping for years now. In any case, this oil drilling is nothing but a desperate move by all politicians.
But let's say that the oil that comes out of those grounds get put to use. Are we gonna actually put that oil to use or "free" trade it and get ourselves ripped again? And why badmouth conservation and fuel efficiency? Sure, the price of crude oil is finally below 100 a barrel but only because the sudden lowering occurs during election season every time only to go back up. Now, with all the manufacturing and transportation demands on that oil, what's going to happen when that oil is gone?
Face it. We can't keep trying to drill for a finite source. The inevitable reality is we are going to have to conserve, upgrade public transportation infrasture for buses, trains, and even bike paths, put higher fuel efficiency first which Big Auto and Big Oil doesn't want to do since they rig the market dubbed "free", cut down on Big Agri oversubsidization and balance the corn-fed shit with a return to local grass-fed meat and diary which burn very little fossil fuels and weigh less for transportation not to mention are healthier, and turn towards newer sources of energy or even abandoned versions which were outlawed due to purely business/political reasons.
Hi Fred,
Other than your remark about corn since that's the cash crop in Nebraska, I find your ideas interesting. I wish Democrats could think like you. As for oil and what's left, the global production is right around the peak and the results don't look good. While I don't mind corn ethanol, I too am not optimistic about it. It takes 3 barrels of oil to produce 4 barrels of corn ethanol and it actually damages the engine in the long run. Corn has no business being used for fuel but for food. The oil companies and big agriculture get the loot but not us farmers.
"He didn't support it at $2 a gal gas...$4 a gal and I think we ALL support it"
Very desperate thinking, no? So how much do you expect the price of gas to drop to as a result of drilling offshore? Regardless of how much oil we even get out of the ground, I don't see the price dropping. And there's no way we're going to be getting $2/gal no matter what. I don't even think that we'll get back to $3/gal.
Nope.
If anything it should cost a lot more. That's the only way to get us 'mericans to conserve energy.
Johnny J-Rock
No, just all you non-rational, issue illeterate Americans. It's fine with me if the Democrats want to pander to the vote by supporting more drilling. Everyone in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, knows it won't do any good except for election pandering to idiots like you.
By this logic if the Dems hadn't put off shore drilling off limits, it would have been used up long ago. 40 years of conservation efforts have paid off, huh.
[Reply to SnowWolf 1:17 pm] Bullsh*t. The amount of oil at ANWR is enough to provide America's oil needs for SIX months. It isn't going to amount to diddly squat, and to pretend otherwise is deluded or cynical. Same goes for offshore oil. Conservation is what Americans need to to, BIG time, and development of alternative (non-fossil-fuel-based) forms of energy.
Drill, baby, drill!
The level of discourse in our country has sunk to the point where these three words have won out over intelligent reasoning in this debate.
Dems: But, we need to fight global warming develop new energy supplies...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: We can end our dependence on foreign oil by putting into production existing technology that will increase efficiency and garish power from renewables...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Our coastlines are ecologically sensitive and the drilling for oil won't alleviate prices for at least ten years... about the time it would take to implement alternatives...
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Isn't it time to develop clean energy?
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: But it's a matter of supply and demand.. even if we find oil, it's a finite resources. Eventually we'll run out of it, the price will skyrocket, and if we haven't developed alternatives we'll be screwed
Repubs: Drill, baby, drill!
Dems: Ok, Ok, you win. We'll drill. Just please promise not to sick that lipstick wearing pitbull on us... we swear, we'll do whatever you say.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Politically, I love this made-up dialogue! I do not however like the Epicurus quote.
God doesn't make evil, people do. Trying to blame God for all the evil in the world is like living in a state of denial. We all have a lot of pride and do a lot of evil things, so we want to believe that the consequences aren't a product of our decisions. Someone drives drunk, they crash, killing someone. That's cause and effect, not some failure on the part of God or metaphysical equalizer for some past sin (see Job.) Wars are another example...can we expect God to prevent evil men from doing evil things, or decent people from making mistakes? If God were to end all evil (as before in the Garden of Good and Evil), we'd all be better off. But as long as the apple is there for people to taste--free will--, we're prideful and hence sinful and will break the rules--it's in our nature. We just don't see our collective responsibilities and instead choose to transfer our failures to others--in this case God. Just another cop-out. Address the source of evil, not God or religion. Now as for sickness, and death, you might be able to blame God somewhat. These problems are rooted in science and the imperfect human body (maybe made so by bad habits, environmental toxins, unclean air and water.) Many of those problems like hunger could be solved if we had more Godlike compassion for those suffering...
First: I apologize to CD readers for yet again wasting space on a topic unrelated to the news article at hand; however, I will continue to defend this quote when attacked for displaying it.
JBPeebles: Glad you've thoroughly thought through the issue, you know, since men invented AIDs, hurricanes, famine, drought, freak accidents, tsunamis...
By your logic, if a person is born into poverty, struggles daily to escape from it, a drunk driver crashes into and kills their child, they lose their shitty job as a result of downsizing, and then are diagnosed with a terminal illness... this is all somehow their fault? Meanwhile, some rich snobby brat gets everything handed to them on a silver platter and lives a long and happy life. Praise Jesus.
Now, see, I don't believe in a God even remotely similar to that portrayed in monotheistic religion (if I believe in one at all, which is doubtful). As a result, the existance of evil and suffering does not throw a wrench in my worldview at all.
However, if I were to believe that God is a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being as portrayed (at least, when he's not ordering brutal atrocities to be carried out in his name) in supposed "holy" books, then the existence of evil and suffering would blow a gigantic hole in my worldview... (as it eventually did, hence me no longer being religious).
God can't love you, know everything you will do before you do it, control everything, and then still put you into situations that cause you to suffer without being some sort of maniacal asshole. You can't have freewill if God knows everything you are going to do before you do it without ignoring a gigantic paradox.
The Job and Adam and Eve fables are the perfect example. God knew what would happen when he created Lucifer. He knew what would happen when he stuck a tree in there and said "don't eat this." In fact, one could argue that Adam and Eve didn't even know what evil was or entailed, and were completely ignorant of right and wrong, considering they lacked the "knowledge of good and evil" that the tree endowed them with. And in the case of Job... what more do you need to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian God is a malevolent prick?
You say: "But as long as the apple is there for people to taste--free will--, we're prideful and hence sinful and will break the rules--it's in our nature."
And why is it in our nature? If you believe monotheistic religion, it's because God CREATED us that way. So still, this is God's fault.
You say: "We just don't see our collective responsibilities and instead choose to transfer our failures to others--in this case God. Just another cop-out."
EXACTLY! And what bigger cop-out can you have for your personal responsibilities than the entire bogus notion of salvation and belief in organized religion convincing you that the fate of your soul is more important than your life on earth?
And what is this "godlike compassion" you speak of anyway? Is that where you destroy entire cities and perpetrate genocides on a race that is flawed due to your own failures as a deity?
The purpose of the Epicurus quote isn't to scapegoat God, it's to demonstrate that there is no all-caring, all-knowing God. It attempts to point out that the state of the world is not compatible with a God that has the capability to intervene on behalf of man (as "He" actively does in the Bible).
The only logical religion that the existance of suffering leaves room for is Vonnegut's Church of God the Utterly Indifferent ("Sirens of Titan").
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Even though this has nothing to do with the article, I'll add my two cents. I like the quote. If God created everything, that would include evil, because without evil you cannot have good and vice versa. If God is omnipotent then you could blame God for evil. If he is not omnipotent, and just set things in motion (or started the ball rolling or however you want to put it) and is not able to control the effects eminating from the divine cause, then why call It God? And furthermore, how has God showed compassion for those suffering? Correct me if I'm wrong, but God has been nothing but silent since what?) the writing of the Qur'an.
Johnny J-Rock
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but God has been nothing but silent since what?) the writing of the Qur'an."
That's there the Mormons come in :-)
That's why McCain will win, this is the kind of tepid, coward, corrupt attitude that makes Democrats hated by both the right and the left.
Another reason NOT to vote for Democrats. Do they really not understand the global warming implications? I suggest everybody watch the DVD "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crisis". Most of the interviewees are NOT progressives, yet they certainly agree with my point of view and explain WHY this drilling is the worst possible idea for us. We've got to kick the fossil fuel habit..
Evil has only one tool - that is the disruption of peace - it is applied in infinite ways but it is always the same tool - JC
Guileful ?? Wish it were so, but the Dems have clearly not learned their Uncle Remus.
This government is already a one-party state disguised as two. Most of the votes for the Democrats come from coastal cities and areas more than the interior. They really are so dumb enough to shoot their votes out. Let the Democrats lose and let the true status of this disgusting government being a one-party state be made more obvious. America has had more than enough of the bankrupted "conservative" ideology giving even moderate and reasonable conservatives a bad name.
There once were some Demos so craven,
They never did nothin' but cave in.
When asked where they stood,
They said, "Nothing but good
For those with the bucks to buy in."
Nicely done...
To: SnowWolf
If you can not learn by watching the hurricans that Fu*** up the environment results in hurricans.
do not drill off shore
The only solution is to find a cleaner energy source.
Before you reply do check with your boss Karl Rove.
The history of LA is already a strong warning of what happens when too much emphasis is placed on offshore oil drilling. There are better sources of energy to meet demands and we can conserve and put efficiency first.
"That means Pelosi has barely two weeks to forge a compromise or face the end of the moratorium. That would allow drilling within three miles off all coasts".
- yes! that's just what we need! how about also building nuclear power plants three miles from every city (just in case). how about this, instead of funding the advancement of off shore drilling and the like, we shift our focus towards the development/employment of alternative fuel sources. oh wait, that will never happen as long as big oil continues the lining of their over sized pockets with our devalued dollar.
"Instead, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Quislingocrat-Calif.), they are offering a mix of proposals that would allow drilling, with the waters off Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia most likely to be the first affected."
And if Bush threatens a veto, the Democrats can always give him more. Any reason to vote Democrat anymore?
Yes. We've seen eight years of the alternative.
Better to have the devil you know than the one you don't.
After 8 years of Bush screwing you, you'd much rather reward his clone? Pathetic !
Are you endorsing Biden?
Better an enemy you can know and trust to BE the enemy than a fake friend who will betray you and sell you down the river when you least expect it.
Are you people all working out of your homes or are you together in a boiler room somewhere trying to meet a quota for anti-Obama postings?
Most of the dems supported spying on us and giving telecoms immunity (including Obama) so why not drill, drill, drill?
The oil corps and congress are blackmailing US citizens. "Let us drill the last places on Earth and we'll lower your gas prices to maybe $3/gal." Maybe their profits will plunge to $30 billion/year instead of $40 billion.
If there is any hope of saving this planet, it won't come from a dem or repug. Is it too late to turn this out-of-control loco-motive around?
pathetic leadership. The oil economy is morally and environmetally bankrupt... for your kids sake, leave it in the ground.
Watch as all the clever Democratz in leadership go busily rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Titanic that has been this Congress past. What imagination, what flair, what a load of rubbish.
Please everybody in her district vote for Cindy Shehan instead of Nancy Pill-osi.
Poet
Sheehan gives me real hope. I wish Nebraska could have more Cindy Sheehans in the NE Democratic Party. :-(
"Please everybody in her district vote for Cindy Shehan instead of Nancy Pill-osi."
I live in San Francisco and Cindy is running a dismal campaign. It's as if she doesn't have a clue how a campaign should be run. As for her campaign: I've not seen any Cindy campaign signs in anyone's windows anywhere. No Cindy campaign buttons on people shirts or jackets. No Cindy campaign bumper stickers on vehicles. Not even a Cindy campaign sign for her at Rainbow Grocery! That's where I would expect one. That's the first place I would put one up. Nader/Gonzalez have a sign there. Cindy is CHARGING (yes charging) for buttons ($3) and bumper stickers ($5). CHARGING! They should be FREE. That's the same nonsense John Kerry did in 2004. I have to PAY Cindy to put her name on my bumper (if I owned a vehicle?) I went to her website and there is no "Events" section listing any schedule of where she will be campaigning or speaking or having a rally. None. She also has a very short list of endorsements. She has a few videos on YouTube but as of this writing Cindy hasn't signed in to YouTube for 2 weeks. I get the sense that Cindy thinks that all she has to do is to send out occasional e-mails to the people on her e-mail list and have her name on the ballot and that her name recognition will do the rest for her here in San Francisco to unseat Pelosi. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It takes a lot more than that to win an election. I would think that Cindy would be giving speeches throughout San Francisco every day, walking the streets of The City every day, giving speeches frequently in The Castro (at the corner of Castro/Market), the Haight, the Mission. But no. I've seen her no where other than she had one rally within the past 2-3 weeks at City Hall that I saw on one of the Spanish language networks. But other than that, that's all I've seen of Cindy. (By comparison, I've seen the Obama people with a table setup in The Castro 2-3 times in the past month). But none from Cindy. Who knows that she’s even running because she doesn't make herself visible? Therefore, how does she expect to unseat Pelosi!? I don't understand her campaign strategy (or lack thereof) whatsoever. Unfortunately, Bush-enabler Pelosi isn't likely to go anywhere. At the rate things are going with Cindy's campaign, Pelosi will likely be overwhelmingly re-elected in November. UGH.
You're right sort of. However, you have to understand that Nader/Gonzalas too required donations to get anywhere. Cindy Sheehan, I hear, has gone out of the country when she should be campaigning and putting Pelosi on the defensive. I think that Cindy doesn't ask for regular donations but instead relies on sales if she's putting any up for sale. You should be grateful that at least she can run as an Independent. There are plenty of states where it is even more difficult and even impossible to run as an Independent. Can you imagine an Independent getting a chance to run in Nebraska? Extremely difficult and it's very rare in these past 50 years.
The buttons and bumper stickers are up for sale in Cindy's "Store" on her website. I'm well aware of non-corporate candidates needing donations. I paid $1 for a Gonzalez button when Matt ran for mayor of San Francisco against Mayor Newsom. Personally, I think button and bumper stickers should be free. And neither guarantee anyone's vote but getting a button or bumper sticker for free certainly might more likely encourage someone's vote.
I would be grateful if Cindy were running a competent campaign. Period. She isn't.
Cindy was also among the protesters at the Dem 2008 convention. WHAT WAS SHE DOING THERE when she should have been here in San Francisco campaigning? I don't understand her thinking. How many of the people there in Denver could even vote for her? Sigh.
And the most recent campaign videos she has put on YouTube are from 7 and 8 months ago.
I get the sense that Cindy is not at all serious about unseating Pelosi based on what I've seen from her campaign.
Here's the key point I keep thinking while reading this.
People seem to keep expecting that they don't have to do anything. Lots of people seem to just sit at home and think that corporate money and the corporate media are going to just magically supply them with a progressive candidate that is going to challenge corporate power and change this country.
Are they nuts? Do they expect the people who are getting rich off the current system to change things in our direction ... at a cost to themselves? This is one of my big areas of amazement about the Obama campaign. There you have a slick campaign backed by lots of corporate money and with lots of paid staff. They had a media message of 'hope' and 'change', but anyone with any sense knows corporate America didn't just pump hundreds of millions of dollars into that campaign to screw themselves and give us the change we really want. Not a chance.
So, if you want change, it ain't coming from a corporate financed campaign. It ain't going to be presented to you on the corporate media as the next great thing. Nope. If you really want change, you are going to have to work for it. You are going to have to fight for it. If we are really, really lucky, then maybe none of us will have to bleed and die for it. But the record in the past says that real change and real power for the people means that this is probably going to have to happen to.
We have to be smart enough politically to know that a corporate backed campaign awash with lots of corporate money is going to look very different from a grassroots campaign that is actually challenging corporate power. We have to be smart enough to recognize the difference. And when we recognize a real grassroots campaign, we have to be willing to pitch in and help it.
If you don't like the way their campaign is run, go over there and help.
Buy a bumper sticker or a button.
By the way, the way it works is that a campaign on a shoe-string scrapes together a little bit of money to get some buttons and bumper stickers and signs printed. Then you sell them at a small cost. Hopefully a bit more than what they cost you to print, because you want the money to print a bigger order next time. So, if a campaign gets the money to get 500 bumper stickers printed, and then sells them at three times the cost, then they can afford to get 1500 printed the when they go back for more.
Pitch in a little money for a sticker. Help the campaign out even in that little amount. Grab a camera and make your own video and put it on You Tube. HELP OUT IN SOMEWAY!
If we all just stay home and don't do anything, then we get what's in this article. We get Democrats who are beholden to the corporate money that got them elected doing what the money wants. That's exactly the complaint people have had time and time again with the Democrats in this Congress. When push comes to shove, they do what the money wants. They don't represent us.
Maybe when you see your California beaches all covered with oil from a leaking off-shore oil rig, you can stop and think about how you not only wouldn't buy a bumper sticker for $5, but you then decided to see if you could damage the campaign by coming out and whinging about it. Nice ... hope you enjoy your corporate owned government letting corporate oil spill on your beaches while doing everything to help corporate profits and screwing the rest of us along the way.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
The buttons and bumper stickers are up for sale in Cindy's "Store" on her website. I'm well aware of non-corporate candidates needing donations. I paid $1 for a Gonzalez button when Matt ran for mayor of San Francisco against Mayor Newsom. Personally, I think button and bumper stickers should be free. And neither guarantee anyone's vote but getting a button or bumper sticker for free certainly might more likely encourage someone's vote.
I would be grateful if Cindy were running a competent campaign. Period. She isn't.
Cindy was also among the protesters at the Dem 2008 convention. WHAT WAS SHE DOING THERE when she should have been here in San Francisco campaigning? Screw the damn Dems and their useless convention. I don't understand her thinking at all. How many of the people there in Denver could even vote for her? Very few. So why waste your time, energy AND YOUR PRECIOUS CAMPAIGN MONEY THERE?! Duh. Sigh.
And the most recent campaign videos she has put on YouTube are from 7 and 8 months ago.
I get the sense that Cindy is not at all serious about unseating Pelosi based on what I've seen from her campaign.
Well, I'm thankful she was here in Denver. I got to hear her speak twice in that week, and both were amazing experiences. I'd strongly recommend that anyone in the Bay Area go hear her speak in person.
From where I sat in the audience, Cindy was hear helping the anti-war movement. Considering the pitiful turnout at the antiwar marches around the convention, I wish a heck of a lot MORE people had Cindy's commitment to that cause.
By the way Sam, I was at those anti-war marches. Where were you? Were you helping to try to apply any pressure at all to the Democrats to get them to convert some of their lite and vague anti-war talk into real actions? Nope, missing in action it appears.
Also, the times I saw Cindy she was with her allies in Code Pink and the peace movement. There's something to be said for anyone who comes and helps their allies and their causes out. It beats the heck out of someone who stays home and just whinges all the time.
I give Cindy BIG KUDO's for coming to Denver. Thank you very much!!!!!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"By the way Sam, I was at those anti-war marches. Where were you? Were you helping to try to apply any pressure at all to the Democrats to get them to convert some of their lite and vague anti-war talk into real actions? Nope, missing in action it appears."
Samsom, to be honest with you I am getting ready to retire from 2 jobs and I have been campaigning for the "left" leaning candidates for over 45 years now. Can you say the same? What exactly have you done?
You seem to claim to know so much about me and make erroneous assumptions about people whom you know absolutely nothing about, other than what someone writes on here. In my experience, I have seen hundreds of candidates campaigning for the "left" side. Cindy Sheehan is NOT and I say again NOT "campaigning" in the standard sense of the word. She isn't doing anything other than a few small speeches here and there. Do you remember when Newsom and Matt Gonzalez were running for mayor of San Francisco. THAT IS HOW YOU CAMPAIGN. You actually get out and DO SOMETHING. Walk streets, etc.
I came on here to try to generate some anger and frustration among the people here AT and TOWARDS CINDY SHEENAN to get her off the damn pot and get her butt in gear. How on Earth does she expect to win anything by being a typical Dem-style wet doily?
(You know the type: Do nothing and give everything to Bush.)
So, if you want Cindy Sheehan to win, CINDY needs to be the person PUSHED. NOT SAM.
Sam is NOT running.
Now would you like the list of everything I have done in the last 40 years? No one has that much time to read all that.
So get angry at Cindy. NOT Sam. I was only speaking the TRUTH, which you and others don't want to hear.
If the TRUTH hurts you, CHANGE IT.