Yesterday Eric and I took part in a blogger conference call with Mike McGavick and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. More details and the podcast are here.
I thought McGavick was at his best in his answer to Patrick Bell's question about energy policy (starting at 12:30 in the audio): McGavick:
The great frustration I have is that we now see gas prices continuing to drive upward, but we're unwilling to access our own resources here in America to try and add some to the supply. It's got to be several pieces: Supply, conservation and invention. Those are the three things that are going to get us off of foreign oil and get us to cleaner sources of energy. We have to be willing to work on all three pieces. But in the short and medium terms, if you're not willing to access your own resources, what you're actually doing is forcing oil to be extracted in parts of the world where they have less respect for the environment than we do. So it's not a net environmental gain for the Earth. And you're forcing Washingtonians to go through a transition to a post-fossil fuel economy in the most painful possible way.That is practical, measured and realistic. Contrast with the energy policy of the incumbent, who assumes that the laws of economics can be repealed by an act of Congress and who believes that consumers would benefit if the government simultaneously restricts oil supply and criminalizes producers for "price-gouging".
Commentary from other bloggers who participated: Mathew Pruitt, John Hawkins, Patrick Bell.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 15, 2006 12:16 PM | Email ThisDemocrats don't want to acknowledge that a large part of energy consumption comes from societal growth and wealth creation. When we create new opportunities, we create greater demand for energy, and oil is not going away soon. It's fine that many on the left want greener sources of energy, but to blatantly shun our current energy needs is to bury one's head in the sand.
It was refreshing to read McGavick's answer. Far, far better than Cantwell's positions which are cowardly disaster scenario images of oil spils, and guilt ridden calls for self loathing and belt tightening.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 15, 2006 12:43 PMhttp://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=39789
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 15, 2006 01:01 PMWhat we need to do is treat what is making our country so weak that external threats can harm us instead of our country being strong enough that they are so fearful of us that they wouldn't even think of attacking. We need to threat the threat within or else will we never be able to deal with the external threats.
Terrorism won't go away until liberalism does.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 03:08 PMI was also impressed by McGavick's willingness to disagree with Frist while the guy is in town fundraising for him. That speaks well of his ability to speak his mind and get things done for Washington in the Senate.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 15, 2006 07:22 PMI see a lot of oil coming out of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, California oil fields, from Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma etc. So what does this mean - I guess that's why Mike supports the federal government opening more oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and perhaps new oil drilling off the coasts of Washington, California, Oregon and Florida.
Posted by: thor on August 15, 2006 08:15 PMI was hoping Frist would also address why the top GOP leadership hasn't done more on the issue of energy and the environment.
Cantwell is claiming those two issues as her "campaign signature", but when you get right down to it, she has some pretty mind-bogglng views. If she thinks these two issues are going to usher her into another term, she better take a reality check.
Posted by: Patrick on August 16, 2006 11:48 AM