The Environmentalist War on the Price of Gasoline,

Could it be that the high price of gasoline is not the fault of the Middle East, but of the Environmentalists?

The lack of capacity in REFINING the oil to gasoline seems to be the problem. Since 1976, 29 years by my reckoning, we have not built a refinery in the United States. It is my guess that we are using more gasoline since 1976. Heck, we need the Iranians and the Saudis to point this out to us. And if a major refinery becomes a target of terrorism, we are going to see significantly higher prices at the pump. heck, just a normal fire effects the price of gasoline.

Then we have the wonderful practice, lobbied for by the Environmentalists, of having special blends of gasoline for different regions of the country. When the already stretched refineries have to make that many blends, and then pump them to different spots all around the country, we are not being very efficient with a scarce resource.

So, what can we do? Ask President Bush to address this issue immediately. I bet if we went to one standard blend on refined gasoline for the whole of the United States, we would increase efficiency exponentially. It would be a fix that would resonate with;

•  the refiners in lower costs,
•  the companies who operate the pipelines, they will not have to manage the flow of all the different blends
• the population who will see lower prices immediately at the pump

Then, we can properly address the refinery production issue at a solid baseline and determine how much capacity we need as a nation.

The Environmental Lobby has to be stopped on this issue. Gasoline is still cheaper than milk by the gallon. What concerns me is that we have such a discombobulated system that any hitch in the refining process can cause an impact on our economy. This needs to be corrected soon.

Who Knew Frist Had a Spine and a Clue

As previously posted in Frist has a backbone, News at 11 and other posts today showing the polling numbers on judicial filibusters; comes an interesting ploy by the MSM of protesting too much. The Boston Globe article entitled, ‘Frist eyes compromise to forgo filibuster ban’, is somewhat puzzling and at the same time rather telling.

Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, yesterday brushed aside calls from conservatives to make good on his own suggestion and immediately ban filibusters of judicial nominees, saying he’ll keep working with Democrats to avoid a bitter, politically damaging showdown.

”There are other avenues to be explored that I’m exploring aggressively,” Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters in a rare news conference held on the Senate floor.

Frist said he will soon float a compromise plan and promised to ”exhaust every opportunity” before seeking to change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters, the main weapon in the Democrats’ political arsenal against the judicial appointees. He maintained his commitment to guaranteeing up-or-down votes on judges, however, meaning a confrontation remains highly likely.

Let’s take the MSM for their word, a rather scary and troubling thought, that a majority of Americans are against Frist changing the rules and that there are many Republicans that are wavering in their vote for the so called “nuclear option“.

Here are the questions that need to be asked:

1) Why would Democrats want to make any kind of a deal to head off this showdown if all the polls and public opinion are on their side?
2) If as the media and Democrats claim, that such action by Frist will be detrimental to the Republican Party why would Democrats wish to let Republicans off the hook?
3) If Harry Reid and the Democrats claim to be standing upon principle in dealing with the filibuster of judicial nominees and that the ones in question are TOO CONSERVATIVE & OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM, why would they allow any of these judges to the bench?

The answers to these questions and so many others that it looks like as always the MSM likes to take liberties with the facts and polls. Let’s poll individuals who first have little to no knowledge of the situation at hand and if they do let’s word the poll question to get the response we want. I think its safe to say that pretty much no MSM poll is worth anything anymore.

As stated, Democrats would never settle for a compromise and spare the Republican party a damaging blow. Thus, looks like the nuclear option may not be such a bad idea after all. Maybe Bill Frist will learn something from GWB; the hell with polls, stick to convictions and go for it. Senator Frist may just be learning.

Update: From AP, Frist to Reid – No way Jose.

Buffalo Loose in Maryland Suburb

From The AP:

 PIKESVILLE, Md. – A herd of buffalo somehow got loose and wandered around an upscale neighborhood Tuesday, disrupting traffic and alarming homeowners before officers managed to corral them in a tennis court.

More than a dozen police cars and a police helicopter were used to herd the roughly 10 beasts, authorities said.

“Somehow they figured it out; I’ve got to give a lot of credit to the creativity of our officers,” police spokesman Shawn Vinson said.

…

Police shut down several major traffic arteries, including a section of the Baltimore Beltway, while they tried to anticipate which way the buffalo would roam.

Officers eventually managed to maneuver the buffalo onto the tennis court about a mile from where they first were spotted.

In a related note, most of the AA meetings were fully attended this afternoon.

Frist has a backbone, News at 11

From the Beltway Buzz:

Bill Frist is standing firm against Harry Reid’s offer to hold a vote on a fraction of blocked Bush judicial nominees in return for allowing judicial filibusters of other nominees to continue. Frist said he is sticking with the principle that all nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor, “Are we going to step back from that principle? The answer to that is no.”

This is great news. The Dems are on the ropes and have no place to go on this issue. It needs to be resolved before the Supreme Court has an opening.

Keep at Bill, you may get some of my respect. To grow even more in my eyes, attend BlogNashville in your home state and allow us to talk with you. It could not hurt your reputation and presidential ambitions.

ABC/Washington Post Poll: Is their any credibility left for these organizations

Doing my daily stroll through the blogosphere, I am reading a post from Jeff Jarvis  about the poll numbers from the ABC/Washington Post. They look horrible for the President.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling Social Security?”
April ’05: Approve – 31 percent, disapprove – 64
Sept. ’03: Approve – 43, disapprove – 46
Not a good trend line, eh?

“Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?”
April ’05: Support – 45, oppose – 51
Sept. ’03: Support – 64, oppose – 31

“Who[m] do you trust to do a better job handling Social Security: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?”
Bush – 32 percent, Democrats – 50

And I am confused. Is the country that strongly against Social Security? But to Jeff’s credit he includes a link to Ankle Biting Pundits, in a update, who effectively debunk the poll as propaganda.

Oh dear God, how many times do we have to do this? Once again the big headline and story in the Washington Post concerns their new poll allegedly showing President Bush and his policies are as popular as malaria.

Just how bad is it? Take a look at the specific poll data.

Before we get to deep into it, take note that it’s got a 7 point advantage for Democrats over Republicans, and there are 4% more respondents who are “Independent” than Republican. The breakdown in the Post poll is 35% Democrat – 32% Independent – 28% Republican and 5% “Other”. Interesting numbers given that the 2004 elections, party ID was evenly split at 37% each. That means overall, Republicans were undersampled (in terms of people who actually vote) by 9%.

Read the rest, it is worth it. BulldogPundit essentially shows how this poll was crafted to make the President look bad. So it shows a conscious effort by these news organizations to make the news as opposed to reporting the news. I guess I should be immune to this, but is sure does get under my skin.

Update from the Beltway Buzz:

Following the Debate

Rasmussen Reports has some polling data that runs counter to the Washington Post/ABC News poll from this morning. In their polling, Rasmussen found that only 31 percent of Americans are following the battle over judicial filibusters “very closely.”

Meanwhile, when asked if the Senate rules should be changed to give every White House nominee a vote, 56 percent say “yes” and 26 percent say “no.”