SpongeJohn GardPants and the Mythical Chinese Oil Drillers

by folkbum

(I would not have used xoff's greatest gift to Wisconsin bloggers in my title had this not been an underthesea-related story.)

A month or so ago, Vice President Dick "Dick" Cheney was rambling on about something and let slip a complaint that the Chinese were drilling up OUR OIL right off the coast of Florida with the help of Cuba, those commie bastards. Okay, that's a praphrase. Here's what Cheney really said:

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain. Cheney quoted a column by George Will, who wrote last week that "drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

In his speech, Cheney described the Chinese as being "in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to higher prices means more supply."

That makes for a great story and it backs a significant aspect of the Republican philosophy of drilling our way out of the gas crisis (which John McCain, GOP candidate for president, suggests we both can and can't do). Gas prices are high, Americans are ticked off, and the dirtyhippielibrultreehuggers won't let us have OUR OWN OIL but China is taking it.

I bet you can see the problem coming. That's right--the story was just not true.

[N]o one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.

Cheney's office even did the unthinkable and admitted that Cheney was wrong and that no, China was indeed not drilling for oil off the coast of South Florida. It's also interesting to learn that Mel Martinez is now apparently a dirtyhippielibrultreehugger,

Note the dates on those stories: The first, explaining that the story was false, was posted on June 11. It even got some pretty heavy play on the blogs at the time. So it's not to much of a surprise to learn that John Gard, career politician who lost to first-time candidate Steve Kagen in 2006, would repeat the lie in a June 4 press release (.pdf).


But it doesn't explain why, days after the lie was exposed, Gard was still walking around handing out this flier at county fairs.

Talking Points Memo got ahold of the flier (confidential to 8th CD tipsters: what am I? Chopped liver?), and made some calls. Our old friend Mark Graul dug the hole deeper:

At first, Gard campaign manager Ellen Nowak told us that these flyers had been scrapped. "We didn't print them that way," Nowak said, after the text was read to her over the phone.

Then she made the mistake of referring us to communications director Mark Graul, who confirmed the flyer's existence. But he said it wasn't about China, insisting that the "foreign nations" reference was to India, Brazil and other countries. "We now know that China are not drilling per se," Graul said, "but other foreign countries are."

Sadly, that's not true, either.

Sigh. A couple weeks before TPM had at Graul and co., the Green Bay Press Gazette, on their blog, not in the paper where it belonged, was on the case, with Gard standing by a weaselly version of the urban legend, that China was "exploring to set up" off of the Florida coast. That's not what the flier said, that's not what his campaign said when it announced its energy plan ( the references to China have not even been scrubbed from his website!).

It's a simple thing, John. Just man up and say, as the vice president did, that you were wrong. That you bought into a Republican urban oil myth (like the one about Katrina not causing any oil spills) and that you're sorry. It's not hard.

John Gard, et al., don't get it (and they have their facts wrong)

by folkbum

In my Janesville post below, I never offered up drilling ANWR (or offshore, or oil shale, or whatever) as a way to solve GM's problems--nor did I offer up the environmentalists and others who have blocked ANWR exploration as potentially at fault. A couple of commenters noticed the oversight.

But I left it out for two main reasons: One, suggesting a supply-side fix for our inevitable fossil-fuel decline is classic denial. When you keep doing what you have always done you will always get the same results. Two, there's just not that much oil there:

Drilling for oil beneath the pristine tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do little to ease world oil prices, the federal government's energy forecasters said in a new report issued in a week that saw oil surpass $130 per barrel for the first time.

Congress has fought bitterly for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the Alaska refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, a habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. Oil company executives, called to Capitol Hill for a grilling over high oil prices, pointed to the untapped resources of ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines as evidence that Congress was as much to blame for the tight global supplies of crude as the petroleum industry.

But the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today.

At $1.44 less per barrel, gas prices would fall seven cents a gallon.

John Gard, who is trying again to beat eighth-district Rep. Steve Kagen, showed he doesn't get it, either:

In remarks at a Green Bay news conference, Gard this afternoon cited "the United States Congress" as the main obstacle to lowering gas prices. [. . .]

Gard's plan calls for more drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, something Kagen has opposed, as well as more off-shore drilling and development of "shale oil sites" in western states. He also advocates cutting "red tape" on oil refineries.

The whole deal with oil shale is that it's only profitable when oil prices are high. And the refinery tale that he's spinning is a flat lie:

One reason for the drop in the number of U.S. refineries is that the petroleum industry began shutting down older, inefficient refineries and concentrating production in more efficient plants, which tended to be newer and larger.

Consolidation within the industry has also played a role in refinery operation. For example, the merger of Gulf Oil Corporation into Chevron Corporation in 1984 led to the closing of two large refineries, one in Bakersfield, California, and the other in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1998 Exxon merged with Mobil Oil and BP merged with Amoco. BP Amoco then bought Arco in April 2000 to create the world's largest non-OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil producer and the third-largest natural gas producer. In the May 2004 article "Effects of Mergers and Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry," in GAO Highlights, the General Accounting Office noted that "over 2,600 mergers have occurred in the U.S. petroleum industry since the 1990s."

All that "red tape"? A lie:

From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. [. . .] A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity.

The oil companies aren't falling over themselves to build new refineries because keeping tight reins on the supply is what keeps prices high. The blame for tight refinery capacity lies squarely at the feet of the oil companies themselves.

But the widespread use of these red herrings--ANWR, oil shale, refineries, ocean-killing coastal drilling--suggests, again, mass denial among conservatives from bloggers to candidates for Congress. The American experience of automobiles (and energy generally) is done. It must change. The Republicans are falling further and further into the past, further and further into irrelevancy. It's why Gard will lose again in November, why McCain will too: It's time to lead, which implies a certain amount of going forward, not backward. And it would help if they stopped lying.

This Blog is Not Affiliated with DPW or Any Campaign

I felt the need for the disclaimer. (I am even a little afraid I've let my party dues lapse, though I'm not entirely sure.)

This is because Jessica McBride thinks I write the Dems' press releases, or something, which, of course, drives the media narrative. She's even put it in handy diagram form, for her listeners who can't read between the lines:

Blogs ----> Democratic Party/Doyle campaign press releases ----> MSM stories

There you go, boys and girls. All those nice Republicans who took campaign money from the Republican leadership that protected and promoted a sexual predator (for years, people, not just a few months) wouldn't have to face any awkward questions in the press about it if it weren't for me. Absolutely nothing that they would have to say or comment on at all if I hadn't gone mucking around in publicly accessible websites looking for dirt.

And now, for my next feat of massive influence: Jessica McBride should retire from public life. (Just give that a week to sink in.)

--

Less serious response: What? Bloggers driving the media narrative? Why, conservatives would never do that. (*cough* danrather *cough*)

--

More serious response: I'm going to believe that, after I posted twice on Sunday about Wisconsin Republicans' ties to the Mark Foley scandal, the press releases that showed up in my inbox Monday (like this one) mirroring my posts were more a case of Great Minds Thinking Alike than anything else. It was low-hanging fruit, after all.

But there is a legitimate question for Republican Congressional candidate John Gard, despite what Dennis York thinks (scroll down to Hasselhoff), about whether the ten large from John Boehner, who knew about Foley but didn't call for the kind of investigation we've seen in page scandals of the past, would affect a hypothetical-Congressman Gard's vote for the leadership in January. Does Gard think that Boehner--or Hastert, who dropped $5k to him--is the kind of man who should be leading the Congress he wants to belong to? That is not an unreasonable question at all; and the follow-up--if not, why keep the money?--is also reasonable to ask. Jessica McBride is, in theory, someone who knows journalism and, as such, should know that those questions would have come regardless of my writing on this blog about it.

Gard is welcome to make the case to the press that Dennis York does for him, but it's not wrong to ask, and certainly not unexpected that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin would press the issue.

More Wisconsin Connections to the Foley Scandal: John Gard has some 'splainin to do

(Slight update at 4:00 pm to add another $10,000.)

The Brew City Brawler pointed out yesterday--though I didn't see it until this afternoon--that Republican candidate for the Wisconsin 8th Congressional District John Gard has Foley problems. No, Mark Foley has never given money to Gard (the way he did for gubernatorial candidate Mark Green), but Gard did get money from some people tied to the Foley scandal:

• Gard received $10,000 from Republican Majority Leader John Boehner's Freedom Project PAC. Boehner not only knew about Foley's problems, but helped cover up for them. He also lied for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, retracting a statement originally claiming he'd told Hastert after the Speaker's office initially denied it. Now Hastert's office admits to knowing.
  
  
• Gard also took $5,000 from Hastert's Keep Our Majority PAC.
  
  
• Gard took another $10,000 from the Together for Our Majority PAC (TOMPAC), which is the PAC of Tom Reynolds--the Congressman from New York, not the nutty Wisconsin State Senator. Reynolds, who chairs the NRCC--the campigan committee for House Republicans--was the first elected official that was told of Foley's behavior almost a year ago. That's right--the first guy told was the political guy, not the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, or even the Republican on the House Page Board. Tells you where their priorities are, eh?
  
  
• Finally, Gard scored $2,000 from John Shimkus's John S Fund PAC. Shimkus is the Republican member of the House Page Board, the group that oversees the House Pages and makes sure everything goes okay with that program. Shimkus and the Board's clerk met, reviewed the allegations against Foley, and decided against doing an investigation or even informing the lone Democrat on the panel, Dale Kildee.

Gard needs to explain how and why he thinks it's a good idea to keep $27,000 in PAC money from men who knowingly participated in the cover-up of crimes and inappropriate behavior.

Tuesday bits and pieces

• I've finally let Keith go from his guest-posting duties. Thanks again to him, grumbleberries, Ben Masel, and Steve Paske for their help over the last month, and while I was away on my Great Alaskan Adventure Vacation. I kind of liked having a spare person around, so if you're a regular reader wondering what it might be like to blog, send me an email, and we can talk.
  
  
• My only Emmy comment: Jamie Pressley was robbed.
  
  
• At what point do conservatives start to admit that the Bush administration has completely trashed civil rights? Two US citizens have been denied the right to return home, with no charges filed, no legitimate suspicions, and no court authorizing it.
  
  
• It really seems to me that if the anti-Doyle for Governor campaign has been almost entirely premised on the idea that he is too involved in decisions about spending tax money that should remain apolitical, then the pro-Green for Governor campiagn ought not advocate making the process explicitly political.
  
  
• Besides the mindset list, Beloit seems to be popping up all over the internet.
  
  
• John Gard: Liar. UPDATE: BIG liar.
  
  
• Did everyone catch the Journal Sentinel's love note to the Milwaukee Public Schools superintendent yesterday? Nothing like setting the guy up as the hero in an action/ spy movie to show how unbiased you are.
  
  
• And I should mention that the Superintendent nearly ruined a whole day of my Great Alaskan Adventure Vacation. There I was in Skagway checking my email at fifteen cents a minute (or something close to it) and what do I see? News of a contract settlement.
  
  That wasn't what upset me--it will be nice to work under an unexpired contract for the first time in five years. No, it was the last paragraph of the story:

  "This certainly was a lot different from last time," said Andrekopoulos, noting that the previous process took about two years. He called the recent round of talks "true negotiations," since they were focused more on the needs of the classroom.

  My head nearly exploded! Some of you may not have been around during the last round of "negotiations." But it was his administration and his negotiators who refused to discuss anything at all related to the "needs of the classroom" until the union caved in to his demands on health care. The union held firm, and his short-sighted single-mindedness drove a wedge between him and those he is supposed to be leading--and drove the contract talks to contentious arbitration.
  
  
• [This item moved to its own post, above.]
  
  
• The McIlheran Watch has been outsourced. It makes for a good column when you leave out the facts that would make it look bad, it seems.
  
  
• Anyone for a stem-cell snuff film? That might become the "Silent Scream" for the blastocyst-activists. Or a rallying cry for those who believe in the potential for cures lost when a test tube hits the garbage can.

WI-08 news: Numbers, Deception, and the Spice Boys' stupid snark

• NUMBERS: The fundraising numbers are in for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional district, with (no surprise here) Republican John Gard leading the way:

  Gard, the Assembly speaker, raised nearly $265,000 in the second quarter this year and had $882,000 in the bank as of the end of last month, according to new campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Since the start of his campaign for the House seat being vacated by Rep. Mark Green, Gard has raised $1.35 million [. . .]
  
  His Republican rival for the party nomination, state Rep. Terri McCormick, raised $11,000 for the three-month period, and had less than $3,500 in the bank. McCormick has raised a grand total so far of $58,051 and has lent her campaign more than $66,000, for full tally of $124,436. [. . .]
  
  Democratic candidate Nancy Nusbaum, the former Brown County executive, pulled in nearly $188,000 during the last quarter and finished the period with about $340,000 in cash. She has raised a total of $632,247 and also has lent her campaign $225,000, which adds up to more than $857,000 for her effort.
  
  Fellow Democrat and Appleton physician Steve Kagen's largely self-funded campaign had $772,000 on hand at the end of the period, with Kagen raising just under $44,000 for the quarter. The owner of a chain of allergy clinics in the Fox Valley, Kagen has lent his campaign $1.45 million. Grand total in money raised or lent for Kagen: $1.58 million.
  
  Jamie Wall, the third Democrat in the race, raised $88,099 for the quarter and had $417,305 in the bank. Wall is a business consultant and former state development official who lives in Green Bay. He's raised a total of more than $600,000 and lent more than $100,000 to his campaign for a grand total of $715,694.

  Kevin of the conservative Lakeshore Laments blog provides more detail on all the filings: Gard, McCormick, Kagen, Nusbaum, and Wall.
  
  I'm a little disappointed our candidates aren't doing quite as well as Dems in other high-profile races, but I am glad to see that, combined (including Kagen's $1.45 million loan to his campaign), we've significantly outraised the Republicans.
  
  You can visit the websites of Kagen, Nusbaum, and Wall to contribute, or, through my ActBlue page, you can give to the WI-08 general fund--money that will be dispersed to the winner of the September 12 primary.
  
  
• MORE NUMBERS: Steve Kagen has a new poll showing him winning both the primary (by 30+ points!) and the general against presumed Republican winner John Gard. You can see the SpiceBlog take, or you can read what Xoff found in Hotline.
  
  
• DECEPTION: Speaking of the Spice Boys, they note in today's paper something else that Xoff beat them to--Gard's campaign misled both the workers and the management at an Appleton firetruck plant, where they were filming for a commercial. From the paper's article:

  One of the workers, a 50-year-old employee with 10 years at the company, told us this week that a friend who also works at Pierce approached her about appearing in the video because the camera crew needed another woman. The woman, who asked not to be identified because of concerns for her job, said she read lines for the camera about how Pierce makes "all kinds of firetrucks for governments, for Iraq, for all over the world."
  
  This is where things get tricky.
  
  The woman, a political independent who said she votes for whoever appears most honest, said she and her friend assumed that the tape was for use by Pierce. The company runs videos on flat-screen televisions at its plants so visitors can see what is being done at each. The videos are updated from time to time.
  
  During the hour that it took to film the spot, the woman said, no one told her or her friend the real purpose for the video. [. . .] What's more, a Pierce spokeswoman said this week that the Gard campaign never asked for permission to tape its employees saying anything. Ann Stawski said the camera crew was given the OK only to get some footage in a Pierce facility for use as a "backdrop" in an ad.

  Now that the flap has been raised, Gard rightfully will not use the workers' words in his commercial. Still, I think it raises some ethical questions about the way Gard is running that campaign, or at least about the suitability of the production company. If there's more like that going on, we could have a real problem with--and a real national spotlight on--Gard's deceptive campaign practices.
  
  
• STUPID SNARK: However, I have to point out my favorite part of the Spivak and Bice article about the deceptive filming:

  Only after the filming was over were the two given a waiver to sign. The woman said she signed it quickly without reading the form because she had to return to her job doing detailing work on the trucks. Her friend signed hers but then asked to see it again so she could read it.
  
  "She said, 'That (video) was for John Gard,' " the woman recalled her friend remarking. "I said, 'Who the hell is that?' "
  
  She explained, "I didn't even know who was running for the Senate."
  
  Um, Gard is running for Congress, actually.
  
  "See how much I know."

  See how much they know: The last I checked, the Senate was a part of Congress! See we have this bi-cameral legislature with two bodies that make up the Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  
  So there you go, folks: I read the Spice Boys, so you don't have to.

Great Minds Think Alike?

Last night I quoted a John Gard fundraising plea, in which he wrote, "The control of the U.S. House of Representatives is at stake, right here in Wisconsin. A Dr. Kagen victory would help the Democrats win the House back." I said that the Democrats' winning back the House was exactly the right thing, and that "Kagen should start putting that sentence on all his literature."

Then this shows up in my inbox this morning:


If you don't click to enlarge, I'll just point out that the highlighted text there reads,

In his recent request for donations, my opponent (John Gard) stated:

"The control of the U.S. House of Representatives is at stake, right here in Wisconsin. A Dr. Kagen victory would help the Democrats win the House back." - Direct Quote

One person I would not want to be today: whoever it is who writes John Gard's fundraising emails.

John Gard gets facts wrong about early TV ads

Not that I keep up with John Gard much, but, you know, I do try to keep tabs on those rabble-rousers out there in Waukesha County, including Wigderson. Wigderson, apparently, does keep up with Gard, and he notes today that Gard is upset about TV ads from Democrat Steve Kagen. Gard's press release reads, in part (his emphasis and bad punctuation),

One of my opponents, extreme liberal candidate Dr. Steve Kagen will begin running expensive 60-second TV ads starting next week!

This comes a full 168 days before the Primary Election!

This is the earliest ever on record for a Wisconsin Congressional candidate to be buying TV ads. Dr. Kagen wants to buy the 8th District seat with an onslaught of ads that shows the Howard Dean faction of the Democratic party will do whatever it takes to win this seat. The control of the U.S. House of Representatives is at stake, right here in Wisconsin. A Dr. Kagen victory would help the Democrats win the House back.

Reading that last part, of course, I'm thinking, right on. A Dr. Kagen victory would help the Democrats win back the House. Sounds good to me; Kagen should start putting that sentence on all his literature.

But, that's not what's funny here. What's funny here is that, in fact, Gard is absolutely wrong that Kagen's ads are "the earliest ever on record." I seem to recall (in fact, I blogged about it) 5th CD Democrat Bryan Kennedy was on the air with an ad last September. And, you know, Herb Kohl has been on the air for almost a month, but, I'll give Gard the benefit of the doubt that he meant "House candidate" when he wrote "Congressional candidate."

Of course, Gard uses the rest of his release to urge supporters to send him money ('cause, you know, he'd like to buy the seat, too, with his $500-a-head Dick Cheney fundraisers). While it's true that Gard can't self-fund the way Kagen can, Gard isn't exactly hurting, either, especially compared to his primary opponent, Terri McCormick.

Some quick thoughts: Cheney, Conservatives, Caps

Busy weekend, busy life, lots of work, still sick, and so on. Here's what I haven't blogged about yet:

--> Will Wisconsin families now be able to buy bumper stickers that read, "My 8-year-old is a Better Shot than Dick Cheney"?

--> Glenn Greenwald writes a long, but excellent post, on what it means to be "conservative" and "liberal" these days. I encourage all of my readers--yes, both of you--on the left and on the right to read it. I'm especially curious to know what my "conservative" readers think of his thesis.

--> Carrie and Xoff have already noted that John Gard, perhaps against the better judgment of his campaign manager (and certainly in a move to irritate Mark Green and Scott Walker), seems finally ready to "settle" the cap "issue." This is, of course, something that could have happened two years ago, but better late than never, eh? Seth asks about one of the things missing in the little bit of information we know about the discussions--funding. Will I and other Milwaukee taxpayers continue to have to pay extra for every voucher kid? I want to ask about something different: accountability. Where are the negotiations on a real plan to provide full and complete information to parents so that they can actually use "choice"?

Campaign Finance and the Culture of Responsibility

Right Cheddarsphere denizen Lance Burri picks up on the Brian Burke Goes to Jail story, with a focus on calls for stricter campaign finance laws. He's against 'em:

We’ve already got laws on the books, and in [Burke's] case, those laws did their job. But never mind that. A pittance. A trifle. Not worth mentioning. No. We need more laws.

True, there may be episodes like Burke’s that go unprosecuted and unpunished. For example, this dreadfully underreported story: Wisconsin’s state government gave a travel contract worth $750,000 to a company that didn’t earn it, after the company’s owner gave $10,000 to Governor Doyle’s campaign.

Chicken feed, compared to the $700,000 the Indian casinos spent on Doyle’s 2002 campaign. But then, their payoff was supposed to be bigger.

Was pay-to-play involved? It sure looks that way. According to Madison’s Channel 27, at least 5 out of 7 members of the committee responsible for choosing a bidder preferred another company – the one that gave them the lowest bid.

But, when the smoke cleared, the state gave the contract to the Governor’s contributor.

It’s not likely we’ll ever prove pay-for-play. Linking a criminal act back to Governor Doyle and his administration would be next to impossible. So: that’s proof that the laws we’ve got aren’t enough. Right?

I suppose you could make that argument, but consider: in Burke’s case, a District Attorney aggressively pursued allegations of wrongdoing, which resulted in serious consequences for a powerful State Senator.

In the Governor’s case, a news team is aggressively pursuing a story. A story that looks dirty, even if all involved are really as clean and white as a Christmas Day snowfall. A story the voters deserve to hear.

End result? We – the voters – can make up our own minds when election time rolls around again.

Legal consequences in the first case. Potentially, political consequences in the second case. Because our legal system did its job, in the first case. Because our professional journalists did theirs, in the second.

To a real extent, Lance's argument makes sense. If what Burke (and Jensen and Foti and Chvala and so on) did was illegal, there are legal consequences that can be applied. If the voters disapprove of J-Dizzle's pandering (or that of Gard or others), they can vote him out. In traditional Republican parlance, this might be considered the "culture of responsibility"--when people do wrong, punish them.

I, on the other hand, take a more traditional Democratic position; I would rather see the motivation to do wrong reduced or eliminated. Take the war on drugs, for example. Republicans salivate at the thought of imprisoning addicts and dealers, while Democrats would rather bring jobs to drug-addled neighborhoods and heal, rather than punish, addictions.

In the realm of campaign finance, the Democratic solution is to eliminate the culture of corruption that led Burke (et al.) to break the law, and led J-Dizzle (and Gard) to skirt the law in his deals. Public financing of campaigns--a system like Arizona's, maybe--would eliminate the constant need to trawl for more money, stopping before they begin the kinds of crimes or ethical challenges that Doyle (and Gard) and Burke (and friends) were doing that led to prosecution or journalistic scrutiny.

Right now, Madison is so deeply mired in the business of campaigning, rather than the business of governing, that the people's business is not getting done. Republicans are too busy posturing for the Pro-Life Wisconsin crowd to effect real change, for example. Every day I get an email from some Democrat asking for money. While I could remind them that I am a humble public servant and can't afford it all, I'd rather remind them that they were elected to govern, not solicit.

So, there you have it, Lance. I'm not looking for more laws for the sake of more laws; I'm looking to change the culture of corruption in Madison. And that's not a pittance.