Shea-Porter and Hodes on Proper protection?

The Stimu-less bill the NH twain rubber-stamped on Wednesday included a provision that would require all those supposed shovel-ready projects to get their steel from American companies.  That’s right, no foreign steel.

And you thought they cut the 400 million for “protection” out of the bill.

So is this how Obama heals our tarnished image with the global community.  Trade protectionism.   Who said experience doesn’t matter?

Well, the foreign governments got the message.  They are already lining up to give Mr. Obama piece of their mind, suggesting that similar actions against us would have to follow if the provision manages to survive and become law.  (Is this the test Biden warned us about?)

Preliminary estimates by several fortune 500 companies peg the potential job losses from a slew of global trade barriers in the tens of millions as the increased cost of global goods, and the problems in acquiring them strain an already fragile US economy.

So yeah,  Hodes and Shea-Porter voted for a stimu-less bill filled with lefty handouts, and hundreds of billions in non-stimulus spending, but they also  supported trade protectionism on top of it.   This must be part of that helping the middle class mantra, right?

So I am of course assuming that they actually knew what they were voting for.   I mean you don’t actually vote for 800 billion in pointless handouts after whining about fiscal responsibility and accountability, or about the culture of corruption you’re going to help clean up, do you?  You don’t blindly support trade barriers in a global economy that will affect every job sector while you are claiming to create jobs for (your union buddies) do you? Do you? 

Is it possible they never even pulled Pelosi’s sunshine yellow  post-it off the front, the one that said “just vote yes?”  Are their copies filed away in the ‘Victory’ drawer without even one dog-eared page?

No matter how it played out, as the bill meets stiffer opposition in the Senate, the public is learning a lot more about just how bad this bill really is, something our House Reps–the fiscal conscience of congress, seemed unconcerned with in their rush to give Obama a quick victory.

It’s good to know where their priorities lie.  Of course we always knew didn’t we, yet for some reason they got re-elected anyway.  So you know the old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…

Vet-ting Shea-Porter’s prioities

Carol Shea-Porter likes to give constitutional rights to terrorists.  She favored the Boumedine decision to provide Habeus Corpus rights to terror detainees, not because they should be entitled to them but becasue she has been told to go against anything George Bush favors.  She also supported giving these murderers 4th amendment protections by hamstringing FISA, and surveillance of enemy communications, pretty much for the same reason.  (Carol does some pandering, claiming civil liberties violations-but that’s a bunch of pap.  It’s much like the lefts fear-mongering on the death-penalty-kills-innocents lies; great sound-bite, absolutely no conclusive evidence that it’s ever happened, but lets use it anyway.)

The only group that stands to benefit more than the terrorists themselves by Shea-Porters votes (besides Nancy Pelosi who is something of a domestic policy terrorist in her own right) is the Lefts trial lawyer buddies–big campaign supporters of the Democrat party.  In both cases trial lawyers get lots of work, and the potential for big settlements from companies who want to avoid the expense of decades of pointless litigation.  This is of particular interest becasue while Shea-Porter is doing a bang up job of handing our rights out the the people our troops are fighting against, in theoryto protect these rights so that the terrorists can share them with us, her supporters have been promoting the benefits that a congresswoman Shea-Porter provides to all veterans, and the troops on the ground.  This is of course quite subjective. 

Carol-Shea gets some Flood insurance

This weeks Merrimack Journal again has a “Letter to the editor” from another relatively well connected democrat who is endorsing another democrat—Carol Shea-Porter—without any specific mention of his party particulars.  Peter Flood has a distinguished list of credits including service to his country as a 1^st Lieutenant in the 82^ndairborne, had Dick Gephardt campaign for him in his 1998 loss to Sununu for NH-01, once had the now newly minted Obama VP Joe Biden over at a House Party, and most recently lost to Shelia Roberge in the 2006 district 9 race for State Senate.

 

Hardly a disinterested party, Democrat Flood comments on the advantages to veterans of having Carol Shea-Porter re-elected and not Jeb Bradley.  Mr. Flood makes a plea to fellow veterans not to be duped by anyone with veteran’s credentials who claims to support candidate Bradley.  One might say the same of Peter Flood in this case, particularly since he made no effort to contest the Veterans policy positions of John Stephen, who also has a shot at challenging Carol for NH-01.   Candidate Stephen has a better plan than either Bradley or Shea-Porter, and his is spelled out in significant detail, a benefit Ms. Shea-Porter does not currently come equipped with. (Not that I could find, anyway) So is the Journal showing a preference again?

 

EVIL!

The Evil oil speculators have “speculated” the price of oil back down to $113/barrel, a $34/barrel drop from its high of around $147 a few weeks ago when Chancellor Pelosi claimed Bush’s lifting the off-shore drilling restriction was a meaningless gesture. (Unlike her two years as Speaker).  What I find most amusing about this is that one of the many stupid democrat excuses for high gas prices was that speculators were getting rich off the middle class.  But even as the price of oil goes down, the evil oil speculators are still getting rich.  You see Nancy, the selling price is not what makes them rich, it’s the speculating on where the price will go next that makes them rich.   George Bush said see I’m serious about increasing supply, they guessed the price would go down…tap tap…is this thing turned on?

So should we now speculate that there will be a litany of moans and groans from Democrats about how “evil oil speculators are getting rich off the middle class by driving down the price of oil?”  Of course not it’s an obvious lie; as opposed to their previous misrepresentation of the facts for political points. (also known as a lie)  Of course it is entirely possible that some of the dumbo-crats who just blindly toe the party line (Carol Shea-Porter and Jeanne Shaheen come immediately to mind) really do just that, without any introspection or independent fact checking whatsoever.  Speculators do what? 

This is hardly a flattering trait for someone you have appointed to represent your interests, because it proves they are more than willing to ignore your interests, and run off and sell whatever the party tells them to sell you, or more likely what the greenbacked green PAC’s want them to sell you.  Bought and sold takes on a whole new meaning. Doesn’t seem too hard to see whose really evil here.

I actually want the Democrats to win this one

I’ve decided, for the good of the country, to support the democrats plan to make oil companies give up their leases on land they are unwilling to drill on

.

Democrats are sold part and parcel on this scheme they have concocted to make it look like they actually want to drill.  They don’t want to drill.  They never wanted to drill.  If they wanted to drill they would have drilled years ago.  This is all a bunch of election year pandering.  So I say, give them some rope and let them hang themselves because democrats are to markets and economics (and now geology) what fish are to bicycles.

 

They are going to get these leases back because the current owners know it is not worth the expense to develop them.  The oil is too sparse and too low grade for the massive capital investment required to get at it.  I mean if Exxon –Mobil thinks it’s a waste of money, there is not much hope that any of the other oil companies will see it any different.  No one is going to buy them, and no matter how much oil the lefties claim is there, not one drop of it is coming out of the ground unless it’s from an existing well.  And they can’t do a damn thing about it

.

But they might want to try.  So remind me how big government liberals convince people to invest in energy projects with no obvious hope of sustainable profitability?  Why, they give them truckloads of our tax dollars—as many as it takes to cover the loss a private company would have to risk if it went in on the project alone.  That’s right.  In order to make this plan work democrats would have to give “hand-outs” to oil companies.

 

It’s perfect.  They just can’t do it.  The Maxine Waters plan to use the government to take over the oil companies isn’t going to fly.  It’s just another empty-headed promise for a solution which democrats are not even remotely equipped to solve.  They have no solution that will not increase the cost of energy.  Not one.

 

I say let ‘em hang