Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is the fifth and final installment of Pelosi’s Folly & Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Since beginning this series of posts Nancy has done some waffling or flip flopping on energy issues. You can probably find your own sources of that news. Suffice it to say Nancy is as misguided as ever. Combine that with the insanity of Senator Harry Reid and others in the Dems party. But before moving on to things like the contentious Democratic Party Convention and placing their ‘hope’ on the celebrity of Barack Obama, here is the final pass on Pelosi’s (energy) Folly.

Speaker Pelosi’s item 6:
6. If House Republicans are for “all of the above,” why do you oppose efforts to protect consumers like price gouging and holding OPEC accountable for price fixing?

from MoreWhat.com:
Here’s another little link for you Nancy. Gasoline Price Gouging Laws Will Not Benefit Consumers And how do you propose to hold OPEC accountable? Producing our own oil is the best way to use less of their’s. But promoting panic solutions will simply trade one problem for another.

Speaker Pelosi’s item 7:
7. When House Republicans were in the majority for 12 years, our dependence on foreign oil escalated. Why didn’t House Republicans do something about America’s energy independence to ensure we wouldn’t reach the energy crisis we’re in now?

from MoreWhat.com:
Here’s a little bibliography for you Speaker Pelosi. You can peruse the Congressional majorities and read about the various oil shortages brought on by tensiions in the Middle East. To blame the GOP as you have specifically in your item 7 is silly. The wake up call for alternatives to the way we use energy had occured as far back as the sixties and seventies and we, as a nation, did nothing or very little. The general public has an equal share in the blame you want to attach for energy problems.

Party Divisions of the House of Representatives (1789 to Present)

Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present

1967 Oil Embargo

1973 oil crisis

1979 energy crisis

Speaker Pelosi’s item 8:
8. Democrats will continue to push for legislation to end undue speculation in the oil market that many analysts say has increased the price of a barrel of oil. Will House Republicans support it?

from MoreWhat.com:
And as for the speculation concern you have, you may have noticed that without interfering with the markets the price of oil decreased noticeably in recent days and lower demand was one reason given. Painful as it may be, supply and demand and free markets work pretty well. When we reach a point in which we can no longer afford something the demand falls and so does the price. Our country’s long standing love affair with freedom of movement provided by vehicles using internal combustion engines and petroleum got us here. We’ll pay for the privilege until we learn how to deal with it. Waiting for more than 30 years to deal with it has a cost. Blaming everyone you oppose, Nancy, is ridiculous and counter-productive.

As for Speaker Pelosi’s items 9 & 10 we should do what we can to help those who need it. And as for new standards on sources for electric power for public utilities, any mandates from Congress will also bear a price to consumers. Careful what you wish for Nancy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Three more items from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top ten list (sorry, Dave) are as idiotic as others presented in previous posts. In item 3 (below) the Democratic Speaker of the House indicates she favors ‘repealing tax subsidies’ but you can bet she will oppose repealing any taxes. But that is a story for another time. Echoing the Democratic party’s disdain for profitable enterprise she believes the oil companies should be taxed into oblivion as energy policy. She states that ‘Exxon-Mobil is making $1,500 a second’ and implies that is the limit for increasing their tax liability. She fails to mention the staggering tax bill of Exxon Mobil, other oil companies and the tax burden to the American citizens she claims to protect. So here is one excerpt from the Tax Foundation to help you see the other side.

February 2, 2007
ExxonMobil’s Record Profits — And Record Taxes

by Jonathan Williams

Today, ExxonMobil reported the largest corporate profits in U.S. History. From Yahoo Finance:

“Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $39.5 billion — even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent. The 2006 profit topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $36.13 billion set in 2005.” [Full story]

While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion — two and a half times what they made in net profit. In fact, previous Tax Foundation research found that from 1977 to 2004, federal and state governments extracted $397 billion by taxing the profits of the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today’s dollars, that’s $2.2 trillion.

So Nancy, you know what you can do with your ‘repeal the tax subsidies’ idea.

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

3. Exxon Mobil announced the highest ever quarterly profit by a U.S. corporation in history last week. With Exxon Mobil making $1,500 a second, how can House Republicans continue to block efforts to repeal tax subsidies to Big Oil?

4. According to the Bush Administration’s own Energy Department, if we repealed the offshore drilling ban today, oil and gas production would not begin there until 2017, and the impact on prices before 2030 would be “insignificant.” Why do House Republicans keep calling for an action that they know won’t solve today’s energy problems?

5. Senator McCain missed two critical votes in the Senate to promote renewable and conservation. The American people have a right to know why he is putting the interests of Big Oil ahead of American consumers. Why is that?

In item number four (above) the wonderful Speaker of the House offers a stunningly stupid question. She suggests favoring independence from foreign oil yet is to short sighted to understand that the US needs to produce crude in America for that to happen. At the same time she wants to force American oil interests to drill on land for which they currently hold leases. It is fine to want to collect royalties that may be owed to the American tax payer from oil companies holding the leases but forcing companies to drill regardless of the probability for success makes no sense. While payoffs from domestic production may not have an immediate effect on prices at the pump, Ms Pelosi, failing to do so will find us in the same boat on imported oil decades in the future.

This blog opposes oil production in ANWR but primarily due to the fact that there are other locations with more promise that should be tapped first. It would be nice if all concerned could develop effective strategies for what to do when things go wrong…. and they will, they always do. Drill domestically where we can. Have contingencies in place for correcting errors effectively. Increase refining capacity to a level that approaches balance between supply and demand. Add this to the other measures like alternative energy sources and conservation, etc., but remember that only non-petroleum sources will not effect prices at the pump immediately either. Nothing will solve the energy problems immediately. And fawning over ethanol which currently requires more energy to produce than it provides as well as other pie in the sky solutions is irresponsible as well.

Part of what Pelosi says about the long wait for results from drilling ANWR is true. But what she fails to mention is why. Much of what would slow results from drilling in ANWR is government, politics, beauracracy and potential legal action associated with the drilling. Check it out yourself by Pelosi’s own reference both from the Energy Dept and US News.

Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Arctic Drilling Wouldn’t Cool High Oil Prices

Of the ten years it would take to begin oil production in ANWR according to Pelosi (and these sources) she fails to mention a two to three year wait to obtain the oil leases and a one to two year wait to develop a plan and get BLM approval. That would be half of the wait to which Pelosi alludes. The point is, this is merely political theatrics by Pelosi, nothing more, nothing less.

And item five (above) by Pelosi does not even merit a response. The leap between item five’s first and second sentence not to mention her failing to connect the dots is as stupid as the three word question with which she finishes that item.

To be continued……

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nan on drilling: No longer the hoax I knew  (Michelle Malkin)

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

2. Releasing a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven in the past to be a critical way to reduce energy prices in the short term used in 1991, 2000 and 2005. Why not support Democrats’ effort to free a small amount of the taxpayer-funded government stockpile to influence the price of the pump within days?

Nancy, this one’s easy. All anyone has to do is check the Petroleum Navigator at the Energy Dept to view prices during the SPR taps you cite. (no noticeable difference in price)

Petroleum Navigator

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from republicanleader.house.gov…..

Boehner on GOP Energy Plan: “If We Get a Chance to Have a Debate & A Vote, We Will Win & the American People Will Win”
On the Radio, GOP Leader Exposes Pelosi Doublespeak Plan on Gas Prices

Washington, Aug 8 - In a radio interview this morning on the Don Wade and Roma Morning Show in Chicago, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) plan, reported in the Politico, to allow her Democratic colleagues to portray themselves publicly as pro-drilling if it helps them politically. The interview comes after the entire GOP leadership team sent a letter to each and every House Democratic Member yesterday, asking them to join the historic energy protest on the House floor started last week by House Republicans. In his interview, Boehner also spoke about his return to the Capitol today to rejoin his colleagues on the floor, Republicans’ “all of the above” energy plan, and the “commonsense plan” to lower gas prices Speaker Pelosi promised the American people 834 days ago. Key excerpts and audio from Boehner’s interview follow:

BOEHNER ON PELOSI’S PLAN TO “HAVE IT BOTH WAYS” ON GAS PRICES:

“What she is basically telling them is you can have it both ways. You can be out there for a drilling plan and be where your constituents are but don’t worry, I’ll never bring [a bill] up. That’s just not going to work. The American people are on to this game of saying one thing in Washington and saying something else back home. And I think there are a number of vulnerable Democrats who want a vote, but so far they’ve been protecting the Speaker. They all voted to adjourn last Friday without a vote. They voted to table our plan on a number of occasions over the last month and they’re helping her. And at the end of the day, it isn’t what you say, it’s what you do and frankly they’ve been aiding and abetting Pelosi, Reid and Obama’s plan to make sure there is never a vote on drilling.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON SPEAKER PELOSI BLOCKING A VOTE TO LOWER GAS PRICES & HER MYSTERIOUS “COMMONSENSE PLAN”:

“We’ve got an all of the above plan that says we need more conservation, more biofuels, speed up the development of alternative sources of energy, speed up the permitting of nuclear electric facilities and more American-made oil and gas and she knows that our American Energy plan, it will pass on the floor of the House. 834 days ago, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, ‘I have a commonsense plan to lower gas prices,’ so I sent her a letter 108 days ago on April 22 this year and asked where is your commonsense plan to lower gas prices? Still haven’t seen the commonsense plan to lower gas prices in America.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON HIS RETURN TO THE CAPITOL TO REJOIN HIS COLLEAGUES & THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIC GOP PROTEST:

“I’m at the Cincinnati airport as we speak getting ready to get on a plane to go back to Washington because I’ve decided that today I’m going to take part in our revolt. I helped start it last Friday and our members have been on the floor every day and we’re going to be on the floor every day until Nancy Pelosi gives us a vote on our America Energy plan… These high gas prices, it’s not just the people at the pump. Everything that we buy has to be delivered somewhere and so it is the cost of food it is the cost of the goods and services we buy. And it’s not just hurting American families, it’s hurting small businesses around America. And we’re going to keep this protest going because there is no way that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama can stand in the way of the will of the American people. The American people want us to deal with this, they want us to deal with it in a comprehensive way. We have a plan and all we’re asking for is a vote. We’re not asking them to pass it. All we’re asking is give us a fair chance and a vote on our plan. And I’ll tell you right now, it will pass. ” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON GIVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE VOTE ON ENERGY THEY WANT & DESERVE:

“Listen, I’ve seen the American system work and when the American people speak up and demand something, there is no way the Congress will defy them. When the American people get engaged, the Congress will do what they want. And what we’re asking for is for Nancy Pelosi to call the Congress back, let’s have a real debate over energy, real votes, and we want a vote on our American Energy plan, our all of the above plan and we will win. I’ll just guarantee you, if we get a chance to have a debate and a vote, we will win and the American people will win.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON THE HISTORIC GOP ENERGY PROTEST ON THE HOUSE FLOOR:

“There are no cameras, there are no tv lights, but there are Americans who are visiting the Capitol who are witnessing an historic event because we’re having a real revolt over the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will have nothing to do with a vote to bringing more American energy to the market to help lower gas prices. ” (AUDIO)

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

1. House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals. How can Republicans claim to want to help consumers and businesses when they oppose these policies?

First of all Speaker Pelosi the legislation passed so what are you complaining about? The President signed it into law when it landed on his desk. There were at least 331 amendments submitted. As people have said before, there are two things you don’t want to see how they’re made, laws and sausage. It is not unusual for politicians, yourself included, to vote for or against legislation for purely political reasons. It’s nothing new, it is just how sausage laws are made. It is also possible that members of the GOP voted against your touted legislation because it was a bad bill. Whenever you force business or the consuming public to submit to your demands there is a price tag. For instance, the costs asociated with legislation may outweigh any benefit intended. The excerpt below from the Public Law which is your item one is a good example of little or no benefit from the cost of the legislation to businesses and consumers.

“(2) Fuel economy standards for automobiles.–
“(A) Automobile fuel economy average for model
years 2011 through 2020.–The Secretary shall prescribe
a separate average fuel economy standard for passenger
automobiles and a separate average fuel economy standard
for non-passenger automobiles for each model year
beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined
fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35
miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and
non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the
United States for that model year.
“(B) Automobile fuel economy average for model
years 2021 through 2030.–For model years 2021 through
2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained
by each fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles
manufactured for sale in the United States shall be the
maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for each
fleet for that model year.
“(C) Progress toward standard required.–In
prescribing average fuel economy standards under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall prescribe annual
fuel economy standard increases that increase the
applicable average fuel economy standard ratably
beginning with model year 2011 and ending with model
year 2020.

It appears the fuel economy standards you are so happy with will not provide improvements any time soon. And even by 2020 or beyond or even the next few years if it were likely, 35 mpg will not solve much.

The other items in your ‘background’ list are quite repetitive. You mention energy efficient homes and buildings more than once but it does beg the question about existing homes. Are your new standards practical for new AND existing homes? You may have a point about royalties owed to the American taxpayer. But proving price gouging or taxing oil companies more than the billions they pay already will only be passed to the consumer or cause reductions in supply. Trying to control investment speculation, tapping the strategic reservce or forcing oil companies to drill anywhere are lame proposals. If anyone cares to support parts of the ‘13 proposals’ fashioned by the Democrats in the House, knock yourself out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is the first of a multipart series inspired by an entry on Speaker Pelosi’s website. The folly that is Pelosi must be challenged both on serious grounds as well as for its entertainment value. Apparently the major thrust for Pelosi’s statements rely on the assumption that legislation claimed to be for the benefit of the American citizen must be enacted whether their is any basis in fact for the expressed claims. Pelosi’s entry from her website is posted in full below. The hyperlinked text will take you to the source. In the next post item one will be examined and subsequent items will be treated in later posts. For now you can read the offering from Pelosi either here or at her website. Perhaps you can offer opinions of your own in response to her statements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

1. House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals. How can Republicans claim to want to help consumers and businesses when they oppose these policies?

2. Releasing a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven in the past to be a critical way to reduce energy prices in the short term used in 1991, 2000 and 2005. Why not support Democrats’ effort to free a small amount of the taxpayer-funded government stockpile to influence the price of the pump within days?

3. Exxon Mobil announced the highest ever quarterly profit by a U.S. corporation in history last week. With Exxon Mobil making $1,500 a second, how can House Republicans continue to block efforts to repeal tax subsidies to Big Oil?

4. According to the Bush Administration’s own Energy Department, if we repealed the offshore drilling ban today, oil and gas production would not begin there until 2017, and the impact on prices before 2030 would be “insignificant.” Why do House Republicans keep calling for an action that they know won’t solve today’s energy problems?

5. Senator McCain missed two critical votes in the Senate to promote renewable and conservation. The American people have a right to know why he is putting the interests of Big Oil ahead of American consumers. Why is that?

6. If House Republicans are for “all of the above,” why do you oppose efforts to protect consumers like price gouging and holding OPEC accountable for price fixing?

7. When House Republicans were in the majority for 12 years, our dependence on foreign oil escalated. Why didn’t House Republicans do something about America’s energy independence to ensure we wouldn’t reach the energy crisis we’re in now?

8. Democrats will continue to push for legislation to end undue speculation in the oil market that many analysts say has increased the price of a barrel of oil. Will House Republicans support it?

9. Democrats are committed to helping families across America who struggle to pay their home heating bills during the winter months through the LIHEAP program. Will House Republicans support it? Will Senate Republicans stop blocking it? Will John McCain vote for it? And will President Bush sign it?

10. House Democrats have reiterated their support for a Renewable Electricity Standard to transition electricity sources to renewables. Will House Republicans support this effort?

Background

A list of the 13 measures that large percentages of House Republicans voted against:

* Comprehensive energy legislation that includes the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years, saving families up to $1,000 a year at the pump. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 50.3 percent, Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6]

* Tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel from America’s heartland, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances — four times in just the last 18 months. [82 percent, Vote 344, 5/21/08, HR 6049; 91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776]

* Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, including solar, biofuels, hydropower, and geothermal energy, as well as new vehicle technology and energy efficient buildings and homes, with a 50 percent increase over the President’s request. [56 percent, Vote 641, 7/17/07, HR 2641]

* Landmark energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting to save consumers $400 billion through 2030. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 50.3 percent; Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6]

* Requiring that 15 percent of American electricity come from renewable energy by 2020. [83 percent, Vote 827, 8/4/07, amendment to HR 3221]

* Reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses and expanding service through grants to transit agencies. [52 percent, Vote 467, 6/26/08, HR 6052]

* Responsible drilling in Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). [86 percent, Vote 511, 7/17/08, HR 6515]

* Requiring oil companies to drill on 68 million acres they already control. [94 percent, Vote 469, 6/26/08, HR 6251]

* Releasing a small portion of the government’s oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to bring down gasoline prices. [81 percent, Vote 527, 7/24/08, H.R. 6578]

* Cracking down on price gouging oil companies that artificially inflate the price of energy. [74 percent, Vote 448, 6/24/08, HR 6346]

* Repealing unnecessary subsidies for the top five oil companies earning record profits — four times over the last 18 months. [91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776; 81 percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6]

* Recouping royalties that oil companies owe American taxpayers for drilling on public lands. [86 percent, Vote 832, 8/4/07, HR 3221; 81 percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6]

* Curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets [69 percent, Vote 540, 7/30/08, HR 6604]

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Woman Honor Thyself, and Right Truth Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

US Protests China’s Visa Refusal for Olympian Joey Cheek

By VOA News
The United States is formally protesting China’s decision to deny a visa to U.S. Olympic gold medalist and Darfur anti-violence campaigner Joey Cheek.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday the U.S. is disturbed to learn that China has refused his visa.

Cheek, a speedskater who competed in the 2006 Winter Olympics, had planned to go to Beijing to support Olympic athletes who are members of Team Darfur. The group aims to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region.

China is a major investor in Sudan and has come under increasing pressure to help end the violence in Darfur.

International experts say more than 200,000 people have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced from their homes since Darfur rebel groups rose up against the Sudanese government in 2003.

Sudan says Western governments and media have exaggerated the scale of the conflict.

from MoreWhat.com:

…and Nancy Pelosi chimes in (of course)….

Pelosi Calls on President Bush to Secure Entry of Joey Cheek to Beijing Olympic Games Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Contact:Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after the Chinese government revoked a visa for Olympic gold medalist and Team Darfur co-founder Joey Cheek:

“The Chinese government’s decision to bar Olympic gold medalist Joey Cheek from attending the Olympics because of his advocacy for Darfur is reprehensible. This action by Beijing’s leaders is part of an orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views, beliefs, writings, association, religion, and ethnicity.

If an Olympic athlete, past or present, wishes to attend the Olympics no one should find that unusual or controversial. But if that athlete has chosen to add politics or activism or controversy to their resume’, is it surprising that the host country for the Olympics would refuse to let them enter the country? There have always been controversial overtones associated with the Olympic games. In a perfect world, this athletic event would be simply about sport and competition. It is not a surprise that China refused Joey Cheek’s visa. It is not a surprise that the White House expressed they are disturbed (ya, right) about Cheek being barred from China. And even less of a surprise is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would offer her two cents on the matter.

Hey Joey, if you want ot be involved in sport, don’t make it political. Hey China, if you don’t want to draw attention to your political choices, don’t bar Joey. Hey White House, it was essentially required for you to respond (enough said). Hey Nancy, you have time to chime in on Joey Cheek but not attend to energy and other urgent matters related to what should be your real job or responsibility.

From this blog, on the energy issue and the one aspect of oil, build some refineries for converting oil to gasoline, etc., before you focus all your thoughts on drilling. On the drilling, fine, drill. Drill to your hearts content. But, up front, stop saying everything will be fine and no harm will come from drilling. Put some measures in place for what will be done to correct errors if you are wrong. And don’t forget about the refining. As for the alternative sources…. forget about it. You have for 30 or 40 years and so has the public. Only crisis will bring alternatives, as always. So forget about the alternatives. None have been brought forward yet and will not likely be for many decades to come. Remember, if you drill like there’s no tomorrow but fail to refine what you drill it is pointless, except for investors.

Go ahead, tell me I’m wrong.

Stanford Matthews

Below is a press release for the Tata Nano and a news report about its debut. It is doubtful anyone has really had time to draw any conclusions about this vehicle or the implications of its introduction yet. There is probably enough speculation to go around and one cannot help but recall the Yugo at a time like this. But it seems reasonable to offer a post on this blog featuring this unique development in the automotive industry.

As far as the $2500 price tag is concerned that has to get someone’s attention. You could purchase a Ford Mustang in 1970 for about $3500. A Fiat 850 went for $2500 in 1972. So is the Tata Nano reliable? Is it really safe? Will it be reasonable to service? Will it be available in the US? How will the insurance industry respond? What are the performance characteristics? Is anyone interested in the US? Will it have an effect on automotive trends here? Is anyone reading this buying one?

Tata Motors unveils the People’s Car

Released on : 10th January, 2008
A comfortable, safe, all-weather car, high on fuel efficiency & low on emissions

Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of the Tata Group and Tata Motors, today unveiled the Tata ‘NANO’, the People’s Car from Tata Motors that India and the world have been looking forward to. A development, which signifies a first for the global automobile industry, the People’s Car brings the comfort and safety of a car within the reach of thousands of families. The People’s Car will be launched in India later in 2008.

Speaking at the unveiling ceremony at the 9th Auto Expo in New Delhi, Mr. Ratan N. Tata said, “I observed families riding on two-wheelers – the father driving the scooter, his young kid standing in front of him, his wife seated behind him holding a little baby. It led me to wonder whether one could conceive of a safe, affordable, all-weather form of transport for such a family. Tata Motors’ engineers and designers gave their all for about four years to realise this goal. Today, we indeed have a People’s Car, which is affordable and yet built to meet safety requirements and emission norms, to be fuel efficient and low on emissions. We are happy to present the People’s Car to India and we hope it brings the joy, pride and utility of owning a car to many families who need personal mobility.”

Stylish, comfortable
The People’s Car, designed with a family in mind, has a roomy passenger compartment with generous leg space and head room. It can comfortably seat four persons. Four doors with high seating position make ingress and egress easy.

Yet with a length of 3.1 metres, width of 1.5 metres and height of 1.6 metres, with adequate ground clearance, it can effortlessly manoeuvre on busy roads in cities as well as in rural areas. Its mono-volume design, with wheels at the corners and the powertrain at the rear, enables it to uniquely combine both space and manoeuvrability, which will set a new benchmark among small cars.

When launched, the car will be available in both standard and deluxe versions. Both versions will offer a wide range of body colours, and other accessories so that the car can be customised to an individual’s preferences.

Fuel-efficient engine
The People’s Car has a rear-wheel drive, all-aluminium, two-cylinder, 623 cc, 33 PS, multi point fuel injection petrol engine. This is the first time that a two-cylinder gasoline engine is being used in a car with single balancer shaft. The lean design strategy has helped minimise weight, which helps maximise performance per unit of energy consumed and delivers high fuel efficiency. Performance is controlled by a specially designed electronic engine management system.

Meets all safety requirements
The People’s Car’s safety performance exceeds current regulatory requirements. With an all sheet-metal body, it has a strong passenger compartment, with safety features such as crumple zones, intrusion-resistant doors, seat belts, strong seats and anchorages, and the rear tailgate glass bonded to the body. Tubeless tyres further enhance safety.

Environment-friendly
The People’s Car’s tailpipe emission performance exceeds regulatory requirements. In terms of overall pollutants, it has a lower pollution level than two-wheelers being manufactured in India today. The high fuel efficiency also ensures that the car has low carbon dioxide emissions, thereby providing the twin benefits of an affordable transportation solution with a low carbon footprint.
(For more information: www.tatanano.com )

About Tata Motors
Tata Motors is India’s largest automobile company, with revenues of US $ 7.2 billion in 2006-2007. With over 4 million Tata vehicles plying in India, it is the leader in commercial vehicles and the second largest in passenger vehicles. It is also the world’s fifth largest medium and heavy truck manufacturer and the second largest heavy bus manufacturer. Tata cars, buses and trucks are being marketed in several countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia and South America. Tata Motors and Fiat Auto have formed an industrial joint venture in India to manufacture passenger cars, engines and transmissions for the Indian and overseas markets; Tata Motors also has an agreement with Fiat Auto to build a pick-up vehicle at Córdoba, Argentina. The company already distributes Fiat branded cars in India. Tata Motors’ international footprint includes Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicle Co. Ltd. in South Korea; Hispano Carrocera, a bus and coach manufacturer of Spain in which the company has a 21% stake; a joint venture with Marcopolo, the Brazil-based body-builder of buses and coaches; and a joint venture with Thonburi Automotive Assembly Plant Company of Thailand to manufacture and market pick-up vehicles in Thailand. Tata Motors has research centres in India, the U.K., and in its subsidiary and associate companies in South Korea and Spain.

(For free broadcast-standard and streaming quality video content about Tata Motors, please log onto www.thenewsmarket.com/tatamotors. You can preview and request broadcast-standard video which will be delivered digitally or by tape. Registration and video is free to the media.)

- Ends -

Issued by:
Debasis Ray
Head - Corporate Communications
Tata Motors Limited
Phone: +912266657613
E-Mail: peoplescar@tatamotors.com
Website: http://www.tatanano.com

Indians Respond Enthusiastically to World’s Cheapest Car

By Anjana Pasricha
New Delhi
15 January 2008

Pasricha report - Download MP3 (770k)
Listen to Pasricha report

The world’s cheapest car, made by an Indian manufacturer, has triggered unprecedented interest in a country where only eight people in every thousand own a car. From New Delhi, Anjana Pasricha has a report on how people in India are reacting to Tata Motors’ Nano.

Tens of thousands of people are flocking to the Auto Show in New Delhi - and the star attraction is a $2,500 car dubbed the “People’s Car”.

The Nano, produced by India’s Tata conglomerate, made its debut last week.

After a peek at the no-frills vehicle, with a 624 cubic centimeter engine, thousands say they want to buy it.

“I belong to middle class family, so it is very good thing for us, good news for us, because I can dream a good car in India,” said one person.

“This is very cheap, I want to buy for my son,” one gentleman said.

“Its cost is not too much, and I wish I have personal car and I cannot buy large one,” said one woman.

“It appeals [to] me just due to the parking situation available in India number one, number two the fuel efficiency, number three is price, number four it is very cute vehicle, seems to be very cute,” added yet another gentleman.

People have even flocked in from villages far from the city to see the Nano.

Balwan Ram took a bus from a village in Haryana state, 100 kilometers away from Delhi. Ram says he came especially to see the car and now is waiting to buy it to replace his motorbike.

The enthusiasm is not surprising in a country of more than a billion people, where a family outing can be a challenge because of dismal public transportation.

Tata chairman Ratan Tata says he conceived of the low-priced car for India’s masses when he saw a family traveling on a two wheeled scooter; the father driving, his child standing in front of him, and wife seated behind holding a baby - all getting wet in the rain.

“This has been referred to as one man’s dream,” sadi Tata. “And indeed it was.”

Now global automakers are watching to see how that dream pans out in the marketplace.

If the small car is successful after hitting the roads later this year, it could expand the car market in an unprecedented manner in developing countries.

But not everyone is happy. Although the manufacturers say the small car will meet strict emission standards, environmentalists worry about fuel use and the congestion it will cause on India’s crowded roads.

The head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.K. Pachauri, says the focus should be on more efficient public transportation.

“The problem is not with the product itself. The usage of the product and what that implies, how can we be blind to that?” he asked. “Where are we going to find road space to accommodate all these cars, not to speak of local pollution, not to speak of the fact that it is going to crowd out public transport options.”

But these concerns are of little interest to the millions eagerly waiting to become car owners for the first time.

If nothing else, a post about France and Sarkozy provides an excuse to post a pic and video link about Carla Bruni. But this particular video is relevant since Sarkozy and Bruni are apparently an item. Seems the French might not be real crazy about this arrangement. Hence, for this and other reasons, the post title is ‘Bon Chance, Sarkozy’.

France Stubs Out Smoking

By VOA News
29 December 2007
The French cafe society culture of long conversations over wine and coffee while relaxing in the ever-present haze of cigarette smoke is about to be transformed.

The smoky cafe will be only a memory when France bans smoking in bars, discotheques, restaurants, casinos and cafes on January 1.

Cafe and restaurant owners are concerned there will be little conversation with less wine, coffee and food purchased when customers are not allowed to smoke.

In November, thousands of cafe and restaurant owners marched in Paris to protest the upcoming ban, but the French government is moving ahead with implementing the new law.

Smoking restrictions began earlier this year in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other public sites.

Officials say France has at least 65,000 smoke-related deaths each year.
That France is engaging the politically correct smoke free stance is not a surprise. Surely everyone can climb on board the no smoking band wagon. This is not entirely unlike the global warming mentality that selects causes for which the supporters can feel better about themselves. It’s easy to select only those causes requiring no self-sacrifice or discipline and look upon those on the other side with disdain. Have these same crusaders eliminated any questionable lifestyle choices of their own? Do you see Al Gore giving up his private jet or palatial estate? Has the health problem of obesity received as much attention or willing crusaders as smoking or drinking or other popular targets? The reality of stigmas for personal choice is another reason this post expresses bon chance, Sarkozy.

But the more serious reasons for wishing Sarkozy good luck is related to another hot topic, nuclear power and the threat of a viable energy source being used for weapons.

Sarkozy: France Supports Egypt’s Nuclear-Power Plans

By VOA News
29 December 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France is willing to help Egypt develop nuclear power plants.

In an interview published Saturday in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, Mr. Sarkozy said France will cooperate and work together with Egypt if the Cairo government wants to develop civilians uses for nuclear technology.

Earlier this year, authorities in Cairo announced that Egypt intends to build several nuclear reactors to meet its future energy needs.

The French president has been vacationing in Egypt in advance of an official state visit he will begin on Sunday in Cairo.
France generates 75 or 80% of its electrical power capacity from nuclear plants. This may be one area where France is a leg up on other countries in limiting less desirable effects of other power generating sources. Offering to help Egypt develop similar nuclear power capabilities as many countries align to oppose Iran’s arguments over nuclear issues could just be bad timing. Like the outspoken little maniac from Iran won’t use this in his arguments. Again comes the bon chance Sarkozy.

France opposed the US on many items in recent years. Some critics of those opposing the US suggested certain financial arrangements with Iraq in recent years may have been the real reason for the opposition.

Thursday, 13 February, 2003, 17:31 GMT
France’s economic ties to Iraq
By John Laurenson

During the late 1970s, French companies started work on the Tamuz One nuclear reactor near Baghdad - designed to produce plutonium - and on a second reactor, Tamuz Two.

During the Iran-Iraq war, France was soon supplying Iraq with top level military hardware of its own.

All told, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France’s state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

Before and after Sarkozy’s election in France reports suggested he was interested in improving the relationship with the US. Some may have cheered no more Chirac, no more freedom fries, no more hassles or some promise of good feelings between France and the US. Like most optimistic forecasts or expectations it will probably require bon chance for the new leader of France even with the cherry reports of his early success.

2007 was France’s Year of Nicolas Sarkozy

By Lisa Bryant
Paris
22 December 2007

Bryant report - Download MP3 (1.2MB)
Listen to Bryant report

The year 2007 in France can easily be called the year of Nicolas Sarkozy. Since Mr. Sarkozy’s election as president, he appears to be everywhere, and as Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris, he is living up to some of the high expectations.

It’s May 6, 2007, and Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Movement Party has won the French presidential elections, beating out his Socialist rival Segolene Royale with 53 percent of the votes. During his campaign Mr. Sarkozy promised not just change in France, but a real “rupture” or break from the country’s past. He reiterated this vow during a triumphant speech shortly after the results were announced.

Speaking before cheering supporters, France’s new leader said the country had given him everything. Now, it was time for him to give back to France.

The past seven months have indeed brought changes and a new tone to French politics. Mr. Sarkozy appointed an extremely diverse cabinet, including not only a number of women and ethnic minorities, but also members of the leftist opposition, including French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Steven Ekovich specializes in French politics at the American University of Paris.

“Right now, he’s exploiting his image as a young, dynamic president,” he said. “And we’ll see how quickly the French get tired of this energy. But we have quite a dramatic difference with the previous president who seemed to have no energy at all.”

When it comes to domestic policy, says Frederic Micheau, an analyst at the IFOP polling agency in Paris, the French president has largely delivered.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy has made good on campaign promises to help realize a new, simplified European Union treaty, simplify immigration laws, and reform the universities and special pension privileges for some French workers.

Not all the changes are popular. The pension reform plans brought hundreds of thousands of striking workers to the streets in November and students upset about the proposed university reforms blocked several dozen French universities. Critics have also blasted new immigration restrictions passed by Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right government.

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007
In fact, Stephane Le Foll, a Socialist deputy in the European Parliament and Cabinet director for Socialist party chairman Francois Holland has nothing good to say about Mr. Sarkozy’s performance to date.

Overall, Le Foll gives Mr. Sarkozy a negative year-end report card. He says the economy is doing badly, and likely to be worse next year. And, he says, the president’s social policies aren’t any better.

Mr. Sarkozy’s foreign policy has also generated criticism. He has established warmer ties with the United States than under his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analyst Micheau says he has not respected his campaign promises to make human rights issues an integral part of his foreign policy, notably in his dealings with Russia and China, which he visited this year.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
And the December visit to France of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, once considered a terrorist nation, generated outcry particularly when Mr. Gadhafi contradicted Mr. Sarkozy and said the French president had not brought up human rights concerns during their talks.

Socialist politician Le Foll says Mr. Gadhafi’s visit deteriorated the image not only of Mr. Sarkozy, but also of France. He also criticizes the way the French president monopolizes the media and public space.

And Mr. Sarkozy’s energy seems unending, visiting French fishermen one day and flying off to Chad the next, to bring back Europeans facing kidnapping charges. Although he tried to keep his rocky relationship with his wife Cecilia private, the announcement of their divorce in October splashed across front pages of the French newspapers. His new relationship with Italian singer Carla Bruni is similarly grabbing media attention.

Mr. Sarkozy’s popularity has also plummeted from a peak of nearly 80 percent in August to between 50 and 55 percent today. Most analysts believe his honeymoon with the French people is over. Micheau of IFOP is among them.

But Micheau said President Sarkozy’s highest popularity ratings almost reached those of French wartime hero, Charles de Gaulle, so it was inevitable that they should drop.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy’s best plan of action for 2008 is to continue making good on his promises of 2007.

(note for this post: if bonne chance is correct and bon chance not precisely so, that explains the use here of bon chance)

By Peter Fedynsky
Bishkek
16 August 2007

Fedynsky report (mp3) - Download 644k audio clip
Listen to Fedynsky report (mp3) audio clip

The six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization has concluded its one-day summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, amid calls from two of its energy-rich members for the creation of an Asian energy club. VOA correspondent Peter Fedynsky reports, from the Kyrgyz capital, the summit’s call for a multilateral approach to global problems is an indirect reaction to American influence, around the world.

Summit leaders highlighted the potential of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to address such common problems as terrorism and drug trafficking and to gain mutual advantage on matters of regional security and energy. The presidents of oil-rich Russia and Kazakhstan, Vladimir Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev, called for expanded energy ties among member states. Mr. Nazarbayev says the pipeline network that connects Russia, Kazakhstan, Central Asia and China can serve basis for a common SCO energy market.

The Kazakh leader says meetings of SCO energy ministers and those of observer states should work as what he calls “an energy club,” - a basic element of an Asian energy strategy.”

Russian President Putin used the term “energy club” as well. Mr. Putin also highlighted the possibility of linking European and Asian trade corridors and urged development of information technologies among the member states. In addition, he called for the establishment of appropriate financial institutions. In an indirect-but-clear reference to American influence around the globe, Mr. Putin again called for the establishment of a multi-polar world.

Mr. Putin says a multi-polar international system would guarantee equal security and development potential for all countries. The Russian leader says a ‘go-it-alone’ approach to global and regional problems has no future.

The multilateral approach is written into the so-called Bishkek Declaration. Much of the document signed by leaders of the SCO nations is devoted to security, which is broadly interpreted as a sound global economy, a reduction in poverty, as well as economic, ecological and energy security.

The Bishkek Declaration also highlights the need to fight terrorism and singles out the negative regional influence of Afghanistan’s illegal drug trade. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, an invited SCO guest, acknowledged the problem in his remarks to summit leaders.

Also invited was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. He says he is prepared to organize a meeting of SCO oil ministers to discuss energy cooperation.

Representatives of India, Pakistan, Mongolia and Turkmenistan were present at the summit/ as observers.

After their formal summit, SCO leaders embarked on a trip to Chelyabinsk, Russia, to observe military maneuvers by armed forces of member states.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was established in 2001. Its 2008 summit is scheduled to take place in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

By VOA News
12 August 2007

Iraq’s prime minister has called a meeting of Iraqi political leaders to try to resolve the crisis facing his unity government.

Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday the leaders of Iraq’s sectarian factions will begin meeting on Monday or Tuesday. His government has been in crisis since the country’s main Sunni Arab bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front, pulled its ministers out of the cabinet on August 1.

Mr. Maliki formed a unity government of Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions in 2006 to try to reduce Iraq’s sectarian violence. But the government has been paralyzed by boycotts and infighting along ethnic and sectarian lines.

U.S. officials have expressed growing frustration with Iraq’s slow progress in passing laws on national reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military says coalition forces detained 30 suspected terrorists Sunday across Iraq in operations against bombing networks and leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Earlier, the military said five American soldiers were killed Saturday in fighting south of Baghdad. Four soldiers were killed when they entered a house rigged with explosives in the district of Arab Jabour, while a fifth soldier was shot and killed during a foot patrol.

All five soldiers were members of Task Force Marne, a unit which deployed to the southern outskirts of Baghdad four months ago as part of the U.S. counter-insurgency troop surge.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Alright, this week’s news for Bill Richardson could be the political kiss of death. A publication largely viewed as left leaning disses the former governor on his ties to big oil and suggests he is only a VP candidate for the number two spot on the Dems ticket. Eight former members of Congress offer their endorsements and USA Election Polls dot com says they’re going out on a limb to call him the winner in Iowa ‘for this election cycle’.

Bill Richardson: In Big Oil’s Pocket?
He’s got the credentials, the background, and the Western bona fides to be VP material. He promises a “man-on-the-moon program” on energy. There’s just that small matter of who he used to do business with.
James Ridgeway
July 26 , 2007

Despite his populist appeal and a recent bump in the polls that saw him surpass John Edwards in New Hampshire, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, once considered a potential running mate for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, seems destined to find himself once again in the running for the number two job.

Assuming that Richardson’s lackluster debate performances and campaign trail gaffes—during one stump speech he forgot that France was a member of the U.N. Security Council, even though he once served as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.—don’t make him a non-starter, he could be prove a valuable asset to the Democratic nominee.

Ties to oil, money from oil and all the while touting green energy and alternative fuels. Is there a chance hanging around with Al Gore and John Kerry as well as the UN and other corruption building enterprises has made Richardson just another scandal waiting to happen. Being lax on security and favoring amnesty is not a crowd pleaser either. And what’s up with the endorsements and crazed prediction from USA Election Polls?

Former Members of Congress Endorse Governor Bill Richardson for President
For Immediate Release
July 26, 2007 Contact: Pahl Shipley
(505) 982-2291

SANTA FE, NM — Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign momentum continued to rise today with the endorsements of eight distinguished former Members of Congress.

“These distinguished and influential former Members of Congress will help lead my campaign to victory,” said Governor Richardson. “I was honored to serve with many of them when I was in Congress and I am honored to have them join my campaign for a stronger America.”

Together, these former members of Congress represent a large and diverse swath of the country. Their service to society, both in the public and private sectors, is broad and extensive.

“Having represented Arizona in Congress, I know that Governor Richardson shares our Western values. He stands for fiscal responsibility, protection of our environment, and an aggressive move towards energy independence,” said former Congressman and former Arizona Democratic Party Chair Sam Coppersmith of Arizona. “I am excited to help Governor Richardson win in Arizona and across the West.”

“Not only does Governor Richardson have the strongest record on the issues and the boldest vision for the future, he can also win in every part of the country. In his last campaign, he earned almost seventy percent of the vote in the red state of New Mexico. People of all political stripes are attracted to his extraordinary record of public service and his common-sense vision of governance,” said former Congressman Buddy Darden of Georgia. “I will work tirelessly to make sure that the great state of Georgia is with Bill Richardson.”

“Governor Richardson is the strong, decisive leader that our country needs so badly. Of all the candidates, Richardson has the best combination of vision for getting us out of Iraq and turning around our public schools, with the experience and record of accomplishment to implement these important policies,” said former Congressman Bob Carr of Michigan. “He knows how to bring people together to make real progress on the issues that count.”

Please find a list of the former Members of Congress endorsing Governor Richardson today below:

Sam Coppersmith (D-AZ)
Elizabeth Furse (D-OR)
Ken Holland (D-SC)
Ronnie Flippo (D-AL)
Bill Hefner (D-NC)
Buddy Darden (D-GA)
Don Bonker (D-WA)
Bob Carr (D-MI)

from Sam Coopersmith’s blog header:
It’s a wry heat; reality-based commentary on Arizona and national politics. LiberalDesert: Fighting right-wing dry rot for years now. Comments? Email the author, Sam Coppersmith, at scoppersmith at cgsblaw dot com.

One term in the House followed by an unsuccessful bid to the Senate for Arizona in the 90’s.
It appears he ran against Senator Kyl. He of course is a Democrat and expresses his dislike for Senator McCain on his blog. Why would anyone get excited about this endorsement, including Bill Richardson?

some information on:
FURSE, Elizabeth, a Representative from Oregon; born in Nairobi, Kenya, October 13, 1936; B.A., Evergreen State College, 1974; director, Oregon Legal Services restoration program for Native American tribes, 1980-1986; co-founded the Oregon Peace Institute in 1985; co-owner and co-operator of a vineyard; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Third and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1993-January 3, 1999); was not a candidate for reelection in 1998 to the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

There was nothing to indicate the remainder of the endorsement list contained any individuals ‘bringing it’ for the candidate. Unless these endorsements represent some power in the Democratic party in terms of delegates or other nomination support, there is nothing in a casual search that would indicate this is any big deal. So what’s the point?

If no one can show me the error of my ways on this topic, the endorsements are window dressing.

For comedic value there is the following information mentioned earlier.

Bill Richardson - Likely to Win Iowa 2008
We are going to go out on a limb six months in advance of the Iowa Caucus to predict that Bill Richardson will win the state of Iowa in this election cycle.

Bill Richardson was at 1.0% in both Iowa and New Hampshire six months ago. Now he is hovering around double digits.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By VOA News
25 July 2007

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency says Tehran is ready to consider higher level talks with the United States regarding security in Iraq.

The report quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying that the possibility of talks between Iran and the U.S. about Iraq “at the level of deputy foreign ministers can be studied.”

Mottaki’s remark came a day after U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq held a second round of talks on Iraq’s security.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said there were some “heated exchanges” Tuesday when he told his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, that Iranian support for Shi’ite militias in Iraq has risen since they held a first round of talks on the issue in May.

Iran has denied supplying weapons and training to Shi’ite militias in Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened Tuesday’s meeting by appealing to Iran and the U.S. to help stabilize his country.

Iran, Iraq, and the U.S. agreed to create a security committee on Iraq, but details remain to be worked out.

The United States had said the talks would focus solely on the security situation in Iraq, despite tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian-Americans detained by Tehran.

The United States and Iran have had little official contact for 27 years.

The United States broke diplomatic relations in April, 1980 after Iranian activists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage.

Relations between Iran and Iraq have improved since the ouster of Saddam Hussein as Iraqi leader. Both countries have Shi’ite majorities. Saddam’s Sunni-led government fought Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.