Deseret News | Bishop to rejoin D.C. energy protest

Reader comments
Bishop to rejoin D.C. energy protest

Page:
1
2
Next >

What a hero!! | 12:24 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Of course you went back because you know that you will be fired come the next election for doing nothing when you all had the control of the congress! Shame on you for putting on a show now to cover up your past inactions!

Reason | 1:24 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Good for Rep. Bishop. Ever since his days as a Utah legislator, Iï¿½ve had great respect for Rob Bishop. He is a rare breed ï¿½ a true principled statesman who respects the Constitution. I have the impression that, rather than trusting Washington to solve peopleï¿½s problems, he trusts people to solve their own problems, and wants Washington to back off and get out of the way.

Kirk Steele | 2:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

I fully support and applaud Congressman Bishop's actions. I have had the opportunity to spend some time one-on-one with him and question him at length about his personal political philosophy. I firmly believe that he has the best interests of his constituents at heart. When he says that he is concerned about the impact of high oil prices on low-income families he really means it. Congressman Bishop is truly focused on selflessly serving his constituents.

Comments continue below

Oh good grief! | 3:44 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

What a hero...that was a terribly judgement call and you know it.

Go get a donut!

What a jerk! | 5:23 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

His family should come first. Instead of that, he's participating in a stupid political ploy. I'm ashamed that he represents my District (and yes, I'm working to kick him out in November . . . not that it will do all that much good in Davis County). He's an embarrassment.

lost in DC | 5:45 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

It was when Nancy and Harry had control of both houses of congress that oil prices skyrocketed. What a pair of twits!

Paul in MD | 5:52 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

I assume you are talking about the Republicans having control of Congress and the Senate. They haven't had the majority for a couple of years. Before that, they had the majority for about 10 years. Before that, the Democrats had the majority for about 40 years.

Responsibility for inaction rests equally on both parties. It wasn't all that long ago that bipartisan action was fairly routine. Everyone wanted essentially the same thing, but had different ideas of how to get there. Compromise worked.

But now no one wants to share credit for getting things done. They all want the credit for their own party and no one else. In some cases, a party will fight against some plan when in the minority, then fight FOR it once they gain power.

Bishop has only been in Congress for a few years, so to lay this all on him is pretty petty.

Cathy | 6:27 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Bishop is a Republican and Republicans don't "control" Congress at this time. That's why they are "putting on a show" in protest of Democratic closure without compromising on a solution to the energy problem.

To What a hero!! | 6:28 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Um, not sure why you think Bishop should be fired. He's been the most proactive member of the Utah delegation on this issue. He's crafted his own bill, spoken numerous times, and been a real leader. The Dem's have erased (or at least sought to) most of the gains made by House republicans in years passed. Bishop has been a staunch defender of our energy independence. As this debate moves forward, you'll only see more clearly how invaluable he has been to first district in protecting our interests. Sad to see the political trolls on this board so early this morning.

TREASONOUS PELOSI | 6:44 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

It's treasonons that "Queen" Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote to be held. That's all. Just have a vote and let the chips fall where they may. But no, she's acting like Congress is her personal Politboro... and she rules with an Iron Fist... Even shutting out the lights and turning off the C-SPAN Cameras. Liberals are such hypocrites. They're all for free speech (particularly for Terrorists in GITMO), but are for shutting it down when it contradicts their elitist liberal views. She's happy that the US is having to conserve.... she wants $7 a gallon gas to force us to "save the planet" (her words) from ourselves. So we'll keep sending $700 billion a year to Hugh Chavez and Arabs...and the poor and middle class she claims to care so much about will continue to suffer. She's worth $50 million herself; not painful for her. Bishop is right-on!! She should have a vote and live with the consequences. Anything less is anti-democratic!!!!

Hate Jerks Who Don't Have Clue | 6:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Democrats have traditionally been in bed with the extreme environmentalists (like SUWA) who routinely sue oil companies from drilling in "sensitive" lands. To them, every where is sensitive. Democrats have blocked ANWR votes every Congress for the past 15 years. Democrats control Congress today. They could have a vote, but both Pelosi and Reid refuse to schedule one. I think most middle-class Americans are getting fed-up with having to pay $4 a gallon gas and cutting into their monthly budgets... and Congressional Democrats blocking any common-sense solution... Instead, they tell us to "walk more," "take mass transit," maybe put a windmill on our back yard and change our light-bulbs. They're in such la-la land. Get real! We need all types of energy, and including, yes, domestic OIl and Gas production. DRILL!!!

Both parties guilty of inaction | 7:09 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

The current "energy crisis" is the result of inaction by both parties over the years. To wait until the issue became substantial is regrettable by both parties. What is important now is what comes next. I for one think we should drill responsibly offshore and in ANWR. At the same time we should continue research in alternative forms of energy (anything but ethanol, which in my opinion costs more energy to produce than it saves, and inflates food prices as a detrimental side-effect), fuel efficiency ratings in automobiles, and more energy efficient appliances, etc... While a political stunt at least the Republicans are bringing the issue to the forefront while the Democrats, also using a political ploy by allowing the offshore drilling ban to simply expire during the current recess rather than having a vote taken where we would be able to see where each Democrat stood in regards to this issue, are doing nothing.

Paul | 7:15 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Didn't Bishop go back, because the Energy Bill has some amendments having to do with Energy Solutions? Someone has to pay for the wedding and farewell, so I presume that was the reason for sticking around.

Cats | 7:15 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

If you want more of Nancy Pelosi and her absurd energy policies, be sure to vote for Jim Matheson this fall. By electing any candidate with a (D) next to his/her name, you will make it possible for Pelosi to stay in power.

childish behaviors | 7:19 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

ï¿½Treasonous Pelosiï¿½ you seem to not want to face the fact that the congress ended on a vote to close debate and go to fall recess. Pelosi did not just decide to end the session on her own whim as you would have us believe. Secondly, if you go back and read the article the republicans have also moved to block bills but forward by the democrats throughout this session related to energy prices. Lets face if this where democrats doing the same thing three years ago in a republican controlled house (which by the way would not allow numerous bills by democrats to move forward) you would all be on here complaining about how democrats are just throwing a fit because they did not get their way and do not get they are not in the majority by the will of the people. Go a head and blast me but it is true weather you like it or not.

Cougar Blue | 7:22 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Why did the Repubs block 3 or 4 different energy bills designed to lower prices just in the last couple of weeks? Oh, that's right, they enjoy good theatre. If they were serious, then the oil companies should stop exporting 1.8 million barrels of gasoline and heating oil daily to foreign countries and use it here at home. These figures taken from Department of Energy. But then, the oil companies wouldn't stand for that either--and the Repubs carry their water for them.

If words were spoken truly | 7:29 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Speaker: "The Chair recognizes the congressman from Big Oil."

Rob Bishop: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker ...."

To childish behaviors | 7:33 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

I'm not sure you're comment merits a response, but you should have made your title "childish spelling"... Good grief, learn how to spell!

Constituent | 7:35 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Too bad that these members of the House don't show the same commitment and compassion for boarder guards Campos and Compien who are unjustly imprisoned by Bush and his cronies for shooting a drug smuggler.

Jeremy Jensen | 7:37 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

"It's treasonons that "Queen" Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote to be held."

Republicans have filibustered more legislation this session than any other session in history, which means, repeatedly, they haven't "allowed a vote to be held." So, according to your logic, the Republicans are far more treasonous than the Democrats.

The Republican assertion that offshore drilling in the US will significantly lower gas prices in the US is absurd. We won't see any of that oil for 10 years, and the amount we expect to find in the ocean is fairly small. Additionally, the idea that offshore drilling is a way to make us more energy independent is ridiculous. Republicans gloss over the fact that any oil we drill will just go on the world market, and will decrease the prices in China as much as it decreases the prices here.

So the Republicans want to exacerbate an environmental problem, and possibly endanger coastal tourism (which brings in billions), for the possibility of slightly lower prices ten years from now. What a joke!

To the Morons on this Board | 7:50 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

childish behaviors: Your ill-informed regarding the process for adjourning. The Speaker controls the Floor, the agenda, and the has the majority of the votes. It was her party which brought the adjournment resolution to the Floor and voted overwhelmingly in favor of it, as they couldn't take the heat in DC.

At least one of the Democrat bills seeking to reduce gas prices passed. It called for suspension of contributions to the SPR. The Admin stopped, but the action had no effect. The others were pretend legislation. They were not serious attempts to address the issue in meaningful way. The NPR-A is already open for leasing, but the process has been stalled by environmentalists. They have sued at every turn.

To Paul: your statement is a cynical low blow to an honorable legislator. There's no connection between Bishop's actions on this matter and Energy Solutions.

To What a Jerk: So Bishop returns to DC with the explicit blessing of his family on a matter of national importance and all you do is call him a "jerk." Bishop's priorities are right where they need to be: God, Family, and Country. He's got them in balance -- a true citizen legislator!

Reply to Childish | 7:57 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

VIrtually everyone who covers the hill knows that there is highly likely a simple majority vote (and growing every day) of members on both Republican and Democratic side.. who support drilling at least off-shore. But Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a vote. She has that power as the Speaker of the House. It would take two-thirds vote (not quite there yet) to get around her on procedural grounds. So the fact that a majority support drilling, but she doesn't and keeps blocking a vote, is the whole point. She's the top Democratic leader, and yet, is anti-democratic with her machiavellian actions. Problem is, we're all paying for her stupid ideologies at the gas pump. DRILL!!

The Rock | 7:56 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Good for Congressman Bishop and the other protesters.

What we have here is a patient who is starving to death (US economy) and doctor Pelosi tells the patient to conserve food. She will not allow anyone to grow more food than we are now growing. We can't go to locations where food is know to exist (stores). Nope, we have to search for it in other places.

If the Democrats really wanted us to transition from oil to other forms of energy, they should have required that all cars be equipped with dual fuel capability 5 years ago. Now oil is unaffordable, we have no choice but to buy it.

The only place Democrats want to drill is YOUR WALLET.

To Jeremy | 8:00 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Earth to Jeremy, the House cannot filibuster. It's not in their rules. Under the Rules of the House, Nancy calls the shots and sets the agenda. If she wants to block something from coming to the Floor, she has all the power she needs to do that. If she wants to bring something to the Floor, she can just ram it through the Rules Committee like she's done for the last year and a half.

Every global energy analyst has stated the issue is one of SUPPLY. The global demand for oil will ONLY increase. In the US we need to both conserve as well as produce more energy (of all types). If we don't do something now, we'll really be in a world of hurt in 10 years. Even talking about increasing drilling has helped bring the price oil down. Go back to Bush's rescinding the Executive Order on the OCS and see what has happened to the price of crude since then. Coastal tourism is a red herring. Without access to affordable energy folks can't afford to travel. The two are not mutually exlusive. You have to have affordable energy in order to have a strong tourism base.

Big Oil "Boogeyman" | 8:01 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Yes, lets continue to make Oil Companies the boogeyman here... let's tax them out of existence, and not only will our 401 K plans go down, but we'll end up with shortages. Maybe we can Nationalise our Oil Companies (like France and Mexico tried to do) and experience the dismal failures that creates... Or, here's another brilliant idea..let's avoid the real issue (needing to drill for more supply).. by saying that it's the Speculators driving up the cost (they can only do that if there is a short supply, duh!). Or better yet, let's drain our National Emergency Reserve... and hope and pray there isn't a real need for emergency supplies....All brilliant Democratic ideas for our energy future.

Hey, Matheson's a Democrat | 8:05 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

This has been educational reading all of these posts. But isn't Matheson a Democrat? Where does he stand, does anyone know? Does he support more oil drilling off-shore or in ANWR? If he does, can't he persuade "his" party leader, Nancy Pelosi, to allow a vote? Just curious....

lost in DC | 8:35 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

I don't believe Matheson has all the same positions as Nancy, but he has to vote for her as speaker, otherwise he would get no cherry committee assignments. Ah, the advantages of party affiliation.

And regardless of how they ended their session, it is Nanacy that will not allow a vote on off-shore drilling, because she knows it would pass. That's why she is viewed as a dictator.

Childish Behavior | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

ï¿½to the morons on this boardï¿½ its funny you would claim I am ill informed and then turn around and explain why I was right. The fact that the ï¿½majorityï¿½ (yes, the democrats hold the majority) of the house voted to adjourn session indicates that Pelosi did not just act on her own as people on this board would have us believe and to ï¿½reply to childishï¿½ if the ï¿½majorityï¿½ of the house agrees with your position as you claim they could have blocked the closer of session, but thatï¿½s alright shot the messenger it is easier then actually facing reality.

Cats | 8:43 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Jim Matheson supports Nancy Pelosi. He helps her stay in power. Please, don't be fooled by his assertion that he is a "conservative Democrat." If he were conservative, he wouldn't be a Democrat. He voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker and continues to support her.

IF YOU WANT A CONTINUATION OF NANCY PELOSI AND HER ENERGY POLICY, VOTE FOR JIM MATHESON IN NOVEMBER.

alien | 8:44 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Who was it that left without song when the GOP left without deciding any immigrant law. This is just stupid politics of chldren having another sleepover.

MW | 8:55 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

It's time that the democrats break their ties with the environmentalist elites and for both parties to come together for the good of our nation to vote for energy independence. In years past, this typically happens after the elections are over and when the battles subside. It's too heated now and too much is at stake for either side to give in. It's just a shame that such small minorities have such short-sided views to over-ride practical, common sense solutions.

Cats | 9:00 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

To Alien: I agree with you. The Republicans dropped the ball on immigration. But, this is a "red herring." The issue here is ENERGY. The Democrats and their big environmentalist contributors are the main culprets this time.

EJ | 9:01 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Matheson voted for this recess and against a discussion on the GOP energy bill-, just like the rest of the dems. I don't care if he says he supports drilling or not his actions are proving he doesn't want any solutions to the $4.30 gas I am paying for.

Childish Behavior | 9:06 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

You're sounding more and more like your moniker. Don't try and argue semantics with me because you won't win! No one has claimed that Pelosi shuttered the House on a whim, contrary to your assertion that we did so. We've all acknowledged that she is the Speaker of the House. As such, she controls the Floor and the flow of legislation. It was WITHIN HER power to extend the House session and bring a meaningful energy bill to the Floor. She did not do that. Instead she directed her deputy Steny Hoyer to make a motion "that the House do now adjourn." A Roll Call vote was demanded, and the resolution passed 213-197 with 15 Democrats voting against adjournment. As the majority party's leader she, along with her colleagues in the Democratic caucus (Jim Matheson included), is wholly responsible for the adjournment and for not addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

Politics as usual | 9:09 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Why can't you all just face the fact that this is simply run of the mill politics. The party in the minority (whichever one it is) can't control the agenda, so they whine and snivel about it, as a symbolic gesture to their supporters that they are trying to do something. They point fingers of blame whenever possible, knowing full well that's all they can do because THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES to do anything else. The reason they don't have the votes is that Americans (displaying unusual intelligence in the present example) voted them out of power. If you don't like the outcome, you can vote to change it in November, but don't blame Nancy Pelosi. If anyone is to blame (or to receive credit), it is the American public who went to the polls and gave Pelosi a majority. Those of you whining on this board are no better than the whining congressmen who should be home with their families. You can't really do anything about it, so you complain. Both in your case, and with the congressmen, there is one simple problem. It does no good to whine when nobody is listening.

Matthew | 9:12 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

The current energy situation is the fault of the American people. We collectively abandoned our efforts at conservation and development of alternative energy that were begun in the 1970s. The current price of oil is just approaching its true value. Escalating drilling isn't the solution. It would be a continuation of the mistakes of the past 25 years. It would be a vain attempt to delay the inevitable.

Childish Behavior | 9:19 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

the fact that someone just posted under the name I have been using childish behavior 9:06 a.m. just proved my point about peoples behaviors. if you are still not convinced this is childish behavior I will submit one last thought before going, think about the fact that s republican senators decided that the mature way to act on the house floor was to walk around holding a picture of a VW with a sail on top and saying "look at me I am a democrat and this is my idea of energy policy." funny? Alright maybe, childish? Yes. Anyway have fun throwing your fit!

We want drilling | 9:20 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

The fact of the matter is that over 60% of Americans want to drill for more oil domestically. Congress is supposed to represent the people. The democrats are just representing themselves obviously.

What I don't understand is that according to the left, we should not drill because we are helping to destroy the planet. Isn't the planet being destroyed already by foreign oil countries? If we can move oil drilling to our own back yard, at least we would be the ones in control, we would bring more jobs and be more self-sufficient. Sounds like the lesser of two evils to me.

Bottom line is, THE PEOPLE want to drill. These Republicans are supporting the people, the Democrats are not.

By George | 9:24 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

DEMAND MATHESON to publicly (and in the House) support drilling offshore and in ANWR...otherwise dump him. It is totally obvious the dems do not care about the economic situation of the working people they supposedly protect - nor do they care about increased prices for food or anything else that is transported by gasoline driven vehicles. They care more about environmental extremists. DRILL NOW and build nuclear power plants. Hopefully the voters of Nevada will dump Reid when he comes up for election.

This debate has run it's course | 9:33 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

The remarks on this board reflect about what we're seeing in the polls (actual scientific studies):

67 percent support drilling in the OCS if it can be done in an "environmentally friendly" manner.

Those who don't are insane environmentalists who want us to "drive small cars and wait for the wind" (The Official Democrat Energy Plan).

I think that has been fairly well reflected in today's posts.

Farewell to all!

To the Real Childish Behavior | 9:37 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

They're members of the "House of Representatives," not "Senators." So you got a problem with good old fashion debate, huh! If it's clever (and not otherwise offensive or off color), expresses your point, and helps people to remember what you said, then it's fair game in my book. That particular Congressman was only mocking what the D's real energy plan is: "Drive small cars and wait for the wind." That is a statement of fact which deserves mockery and scorn, especially when considering the dire condition the middle class and the poor currently find themselves in.

Bishop's Folly | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Efforts to remove the ban on drilling for oil off parts of the U.S. coastline are built on a fundamental distortion of fact: the claim that more drilling would significantly reduce gas prices.

The Bush administration's own Department of Energy states in its published reports that drilling off our coasts would have no significant impact on gasoline prices - not in the short term, not in the long term.

The real impact of offshore drilling would be to increase our dependence on oil and produce more global warming pollution.

This "energy protest" is nothing more than a petty political maneuver on the part of Rob Bishop and his fellow republicans.

By George | 10:04 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

To Bishop's Folly:

Do you ignore the decrease in prices since Bush cancelled the Executive Order prohibiting off shore drilling? If Congress perpetuates the ban, the markets will raise prices again believing the U.S. will not be increasing the supply. We need to increase oil production while also developing alternative sources of energy. I have more news for you: Global warming is a farce.

re: Bishop's Folly | 10:02 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Have you forgotten that oil prices are largely a futures market? That's why the prices jump instantly in response to action that has the potential to threaten the supply years from now.

Please provide specifics on your DOE statement. I just reread the DOE's statement dated July 14 urging Congress to repeal the ban of drilling on America's Outer Continental Shelf which has the potentil of producing 18 billion barrels.

It seems to contradict what you said they said. Do you have a citation?

Re: Bishop's Folly | 10:08 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

"
The Bush administration's own Department of Energy states in its published reports that drilling off our coasts would have no significant impact on gasoline prices - not in the short term, not in the long term."

Who cares? Last I checked, the American public decides what they want for this country, not Bush, not Pelosi, not the Department of Energy.

If the planet explodes, or we get no cheaper gas prices because the public wanted to drill, then so be it. IT IS OUR CHOICE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

This is why these socialists want the government to decide what's best for us. They want all the power for themselves, not in the hands of the people.

Oh Please | 10:17 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Cut the grandstanding, Rob. Oil has dropped $35 bbl in the last month without your intervention. You can calm down now and come home.

Dump Matheson!!! | 10:20 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

The only way to send the Democrats a message they understand is to threaten them with the loss of political power. That's the only way they will get the message.

We need to put some of their "safe" seats in play. If the people of Utah dump Matheson and the people of the rest of the U.S. do the same to 20 or 30 more like him, Pelosi will get the message.

Tommie | 10:31 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Those against this protest:

Let me remind you that gas wasn't this high when the Republicans were in control. We still need to start drilling here, we can't stay dependent on these other countries.

Stop attacking the Republicans, at least they are doing something, which is more than can be said about this entire Democratic Congressional season.

The Democrats haven't actually done anything to drop the prices, all they have are ridiculous tax plans for oil prices, yeah like that is going to lower the prices, talk about seeing them skyrocket.

To "oh Please":

Oh please is right, $35 is not near low enough. Prices are still way to high, so you can rethink your statement.

UTim | 10:33 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

I love all this new-found Republican false populism - all of the sudden the GOP is the party of the little guy? Puh-leez! Oh yeah - we need to drill offshore and in wildlife refuges to help "poor people." Sure... Meanwhile, industry holds 60 million acres of valid leases they're not drilling and Questar is capping wells to inflate prices.
Yes, Mr Nuke lobbyist, we all believe you when you say you like weeding too... Hilarious!

Re: Bishop's Folly | 10:39 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

According to CBS news

"Reality Check On Offshore Drilling" (google it)

According to the federal government's own Department of Energy, drilling off America's coasts would not have a significant impact on domestic oil production or prices before 2030. And off-shore leasing wouldn't even begin before 2012.

Why? Because the leasing process is cumbersome. And currently, there aren't enough rigs or workers or refineries to handle more oil.

Then there's this. Most of the U.S. offshore oil, almost 10 billion barrels, lie off the coast of California. But at the current rate of U.S. consumption - about 20.7 million barrels a day - that would be burned up in 16 months.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.