...

....

Regular readers know that the name of Billy Shaheen (husband of former Gov. Jeanne) is no stranger to these pages. It's pretty much a given that when something slimy is spawned from deep within the bowels of the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP), Billy's fingerprints are apt to be all over. As a conservative that mostly finds common cause with Republicans, I've always watched with great glee whenever the Democrats wind up at each others throats. That was indeed the case back during the heat of the (at the time) still contested Democrat primary when the Obama and Clinton camps were engaged in a pitched battle for supremacy-- when Billy, on behalf of Hillary, made his move. As linked to in this prior 'Grok posting, the Washington Post told the story, noting Shaheen

expressed his personal misgivings about whether Obama or Edwards would be electable if they became the party's nominee.

Among his concerns about Obama as the nominee, he said in an interview here today, is that his background is so relatively unknown and that the Republicans would do their best to unearth negative aspects of it, or concoct mistruths about it. Shaheen, a lawyer and influential state power broker, mentioned as an example Obama's use of cocaine and marijuana as a young man, which Obama has been open about in his memoir and on the trail.

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Sometimes dirty tricks are hard to overcome. And, some end up having unintended (or maybe not?) consequences...

As reported by Jim Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot:

Some anonymous figure has filed a complaint with the Illinois Bar Association, charging Obama with:

 

a) making a statement of material fact in connection with a bar application that the applicant knows to be false; b) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law; c) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; d) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and e) engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

The complaint charges Obama with not admitting his drug use on his application.

18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited,
arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any
violation of any law other than moving traffic violations.

In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered
"no." The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring
through his time in high school and college.

But that's not the best part. This is:

The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:

William Shaheen, Esquire
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Dover, NH 03821-0977
(603) 749-1838 fax
(603) 749-5000 phone
wshaheen@shaheengordon.com

Geraghty writes:

Shaheen, of course, is the husband of the former governor of New Hampshire, a Hillary supporter who wondered aloud in front of reporters if Obama ever dealt drugs.

When you click over to the blog FACTS 1ST, seemingly set up as the vehicle to push this story and keep people up to date as to its progress, you can read the entire case and its filings. Will Billy Shaheen be called to the witness stand? Will Barack Obama have to go through disbarment proceedings while entering the home stretch of the campiagn? And what about Hillary? Recall she has only "suspended" her campaign.

Is this too much fun, or what? I just LOVE Billy Shaheen!!!!!

Hopefully wife Jeanne will get caught in some of the splatter...

Break out the popcorn!

Hi Nate!

We live in the 1st, so that was the reason I did that. 

I was also disappointed that only Clegg and Horn were mentioned against Hodes, so I didn't bother - I really didn't want to present a partial picture.  I probably should go back and state that.

-Skip

=================================================

While it is true that the only poll that counts is when the ballot box is picked clean and the final tally is known.  So, even if the poll you see know is not one that gives you results you like (as Doug noted here that some Dems might not be too happy with).  In fact, it's the results from this poll by UNH. For the really wonky types, take a look see (that would be moi!)

And I have to eat crow.  Remember what I blogged a while ago?  Well, Senator Sununu has obviously been a ball of fire! First, it looks like any lead Shaheen had over Sununu has evaporated...

 ...and it probably is going to get worse if these Favorable / Unfavorables are to be believed -  with one going the wrong way (Shaheen's)...

Then the more crowded race here in the First Congressional District between Carol Shea-Porter, Jeb Bradley, and John Stephen.  Methinks, with the above and this, that the Dems picture from 2006 has some cracks in it (gee, like the cracks Hillary was talking about for her campaign?)!

First, it looks like CSP is going to take a thumping by Jeb by 6%

 And then John Stephen gets thumped in a head to head by CSP by 6%

Favorables vs Unfavorables?  Again, I was quite surprised - Jeb's leading the pack! Sure, the unfavs are up (I would imagine due to the uptick in aggressive attacks by John Stephen), but the Favorables are up at a far faster pace.

CSP comes in second....and like Shaheen, her numbers are going in the wrong direction.  One has to wonder, too, given that she's been so screened by her staffers - is the silence starting to show on the issues?  Or is the fact that the Democrat controlled Congress's 9% favorable rating is rubbing off on her (given her slavish voting with her Democrat Leadership)?

Heh?  2006 in reverse?

And I am really blown away with the low numbers for John Stephen! While his Fav is better than the Unfav, man, it's not budging.  Less than 20% have a favorable rating?

Let's see what happens in another month....

.

.....

At one point during the last blogger conference call with representatives from the oil and gas industry (American Petroleum Institute-API), the conversation shifted to the amount of lead time needed from proposal to study, drill, and bring product to market and whether, in the face of promised new alternatives, it was even worth the bother to start. You know- with politicians like Al Gore promising a total shift away from carbon-based fuels within ten years... Additionally, many claim that the length of time means no short term drop in prices...

MR. MCQUAIN (Q and O): Well, I think that's a red herring. And that's what I'm trying to figure out how to get around. I mean, you know, the bottom line is had we started 10 years ago, ANWR would be online. You know, everyone knows that. But what they're looking for is some specificity here on when somebody starts throwing dates around or when something is going to come online. What does that mean and how do they know?

MR. CAVANEY (API): But the one thing that you can probably feel pretty assured would have some impact on the market is if the government announced a policy change on access, broad policy change, that would affect the market right away, even though not an additional drop of oil would come out of the next day. But it would be reacted by those that watch the market. And then, the process that we just described, the multi-year process, would begin not only in just one circumstance, it would probably begin in multiple circumstances because people would now be able to access some of the attractive things they've had their eye on but couldn't touch.

MR. CAVANEY (API): No, let's – I know that some people have that feeling. But let's just – there are some retorts that you can come back on that. To bring almost all of those alternative energy sources on, they're going to encounter some of the very same permitting problems and not-in-my-backyard problems that you encounter in the oil business.

For example, if you're going to build wind farms, they're typically – first of all, they've got to be permitted in remote areas, so they have to go through some of the same kind of problems that we do when we're out in remote areas. But equally as important, they've got to get the energy from where it's produced to where it's going to be consumed, which means they need to get right-of-ways, first of all, granted. And then, they need to get the permits to go through that. So when we think of those alternative energies, we think of them like flipping a switch and it's on and it happens. But they're going to be on the same queue that we're in, going through permitting, having to go back out to the public, and also running into some of the problems with the capacity to produce the equipment and the material that is needed to get them from here to there.

The nuclear industry is seeing this in spades. And also, we're seeing that in many cases with some of the large utilities that are trying to do things, same kinds of issues we've just talked about.

MR. FELMY (API): And if I could just add one thing, I think you're absolutely right, Geoff – I think it was Geoff – that the disconnect is really profound, because we hear constant discussions that we want to spend money on alternatives to help the gasoline market. Well, that's a huge disconnect because most of the alternatives they're talking about are electricity. We do not have a fleet of electric cars and we will not have a fleet of electric cars for a significant amount of time. And so, this whole argument is just a huge disconnect. And I share with you – I agree with you in terms of how can we bring this stuff on, and then Red's points in terms of infrastructure of any type are a challenge.

[Click here to read the full transcript or to listen to the podcast.]

Anyways, here's more of that same rogue gallery.

Transnational' Profs Forego Patriotism   [Candace de Russy]

Via Roger Kimball:

• The philosopher Martha Nussbaum warns that “patriotic pride” is “morally dangerous.”
• University of Pennsylvania president Amy Gutmann, when she was affiliated with Princeton, revealed that she finds it “repugnant” for American students to learn that they are “above all, citizens of the United States” instead of partisans of her preferred abstraction, “democratic humanism.”
• New York University’s Richard Sennett denounces “the evil of a shared national identity” and concludes that the erosion of national sovereignty is “basically a positive thing.”
• Cecilia O’Leary of American University identifies American patriotism as a right-wing, militaristic, male, white, Anglo, and repressive force.
• Peter Spiro of Hofstra University says it “is increasingly difficult to use the word ‘we’ in the context of international affairs.”

I give you agents of destruction of this nation.

Remember parents of college age (or soon to be) kids - I hope you have taught your kids well.  I hope that you have instilled in them a love for this country in spite of it's failings and errors, for even if all the "badness" was added up, all the good that is in this country and the good it has done around the world far outweighs that "bad".

If that were not true, why wouldn't these folks see their hypocrisy and move?  If they truly believed what they spout, why haven't they skaddadled to another fine world hotspot (hmm, many talk about Cuba....)   Yet again we see the case of "fine for me, but keep passing the paycheck!"  Go ahead and rant and rave here - try that somewhere else.

My problem is that the "young skulls full of mush" (as Rush puts it) really don't really know much better as much of their previous education concerning our history and civics gives little to act as a bulwark against this kind of dribble.

(H/T:  Phi Beta Cons)

“You will never ask Carol Shea-Porter a Question”

This report comes from a volunteer for Granite Staters for Employee Freedom:

Crazy story - today I attended the Rochester NHDP office opening. I stood there quietly with my video camera off and in my pocket, and didn’t say a word throughout the entire event. When things wrapped up, I took out my camera and went towards Representative Carol Shea-Porter. Her staff told me I had to step outside or they’d call the police. Before doing this, they told me I had to turn off my camera or she wouldn’t speak to me, so I did. We stepped outside - the office is their private property and I respect that - and I told the staffer (I think the New Hampshire Democratic Party communications director) that I wanted to ask my representative a question about why she supports card check voting over private ballots. The staffer said, “While I’m around, you will never ask Carol Shea-Porter a question.” I said, “So you’re telling me that I can’t ask my representative a question?” “Never.” She replied.

So again, it seems that the Democrats of New Hampshire are so afraid of discussing their untenable position on the EFCA that they are willing to threaten and coerce their own constituents.

Sad to say, but the Dems look like wimps.  Heck, ANY politician who refuses to take on all comers deserves to lose.  If you cannot defend your principles (providing you have some - assuming you are someone running to get something done rather than running to be someone), you deserve to lose.

Done.

---Lord Thomas MacCauley

(H/T: Doug Welch, proprietor of Stix Blog ) 

When is a poll not to be taken seriously? Why, when it doesn't show the results you wished for...

*                *                *

The Hegemon rises... Gordon G. Chang writes,

The Chinese have always threatened neighbors in order to enforce their outsized territorial claims. Now, it is threatening an American firm. It’s time for Washington to defend every nation’s right of passage-and the interests of its own businesses.

I believe we maintain carrier strike groups for this very purpose.

Will China overtake us? When looked at in some ways, the question is "How could they NOT?"

*                *                *

To those that claim the newest fad to hit NH in education, the International Baccalaureate Programme, is all about education, I say look at the facts. This posting, by a writer who is in FAVOR of IB, glowingly reports of its main raison d'etre:

The IB combines high academic standards with a powerful humanist purpose. Its mission statement speaks of developing “inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.”

"But Doug--It'll also help our kids be more competititve when it comes to getting into college. Sure, maybe they teach peace and all that, but surely it's a small piece of the overall programme." Maybe you think so, but that's not how the cheerleader/blogger views it:

Because the IB’s mission is centered on changing the world, it is constantly learning and changing itself.

See? And you thought your kids were going to school to learn readin', writin', and 'rithmetic...

*                *                *

We're not really going to give the Iranians another bite at the apple, are we? Max Boot on the crazy notion of an American Interest section in Tehran:

who can ever doubt that the current Iranian regime, which is exactly the same regime that presided over the barbaric seizure of our personnel during the Carter administration, is capable of such acts in the future?

And the news in today's papers tells us that engaging in diplomatic talks with the Iranians is nothing more than a joke, anyway...

Ok, Ok, calm down!  The message here is that while blogging is great to get a message out (that's why we do what we do here at the 'Grok), it is better to blog AND do.  I'd like to think that the 'Groksters do both.  After all, if yer jus' flapping yer gums (...tappin' the keyboard?) you can be persuading someone to your side of thinking.  'Tis far better, however, to get out there and put the courage of your convictions and CHANGE THINGS for the better!

I found this over at TechRepublican by David All - one of the leading online lights for the conservative movement.  In it, he comments on another luminary that we have the privilege to know (and am trying to get him to come on MTNP to talk about it (hint, hint!), Erick Erickson from RedState.

Stop Being Pundits; Start Being Activists

One of the better speeches at the RightOnline Summit in Austin, Texas was given by Erick Erickson, the editor of the freshly designed and re-launched Redstate.com. (Looks good Erick.)

The thrust of Erick's speech (download as PDF) was simple: Stop being pundits and start being (online) activists. Let's dig in.

Erickson opened his remarks with the classic red meat which has helped brand Redstate as one of the top conservative outposts in the blogosphere:

There are people in this world who are morally and ideologically opposed to us. We call them the left. They are a group of people who want you to surrender your hard earned money so they can give it to someone else who did not earn it and probably would not need it, but for the their insistence on government dependence.

So for you conservative (and libertarians!) out there unhappy with the status quo?  Do something!  Yes, it takes time, No, you don't know what your doing when you first start (find a mentor!). Yes, you can do this.  Yes, it will take time away from blogging (or reading blogs). And no, you will not be disappointed, over the long haul, when you look backwards to see what you can accomplish.

And yes, it will make a difference.  I am convinced that one person, with a single flashlight, can make a difference.  Why?  It shines attention on something that isn't right - evil and malfeasance hate the light.  And, if you are stubborn, and can withstand the ridicule of those you know to be wrong anyways, others will come to help.  Some will follow, some will follow and break away for some reason or another, but you will draw help helpers like a bright light shining on a dark summer day.  They will come. 

But only if you get off your butt and DO something!

Erick's quick talk after the jump.

And we have the ability to collect everyone's email address and when action must be
taken, send an email asking people to take action. I have a list of 8,000 names I can
email and ask people to take action. These are the 8,000 people who wanted to get
involved and signed up to get action alerts from RedState.

Believe it or not, the response rate is better from those 8,000 people than from the other
email list I have of a few hundred thousand people. Those 8,000 can tie up a
switchboard on Capitol Hill, they can write letters to the editor in their local paper, and
they can come back to RedState and share their news about what happened.

You can easily be a part of that list. Or you can choose another list. You can choose to
be a part of the RedState Community. Or you can choose to be a part of another online
community. Or you can choose to do nothing at all.

But let me tell you, while you decide to do nothing, the other side is marching from
Mordor to change your way of life. They have chosen to do something and the change
they want to bring is not change any free person should want.

In two years, the 50 legislatures of the several states will redraw the lines for the U.S.
House for the next decade. If you sit on the sidelines, the odds go up that those lines
are going to be drawn in someone else's favor. With the Supreme Court in the balance,
this year is an important election at the national level. But your local races this year can
potential decide state legislative races in two years. And those state legislative races in
two years will decide Congress for ten years.

So you have a choice: get involved or not.

Go to RedState or one of the other sites out there. Start reading. Develop a feel for the
community. Then start writing. Give us your thoughts on your local sheriff. What's he
doing. Give us your thoughts on your state representative. Become the person others
rely on for information.

Find what interests you. Start blogging about it. Cover the issue. Learn to do an open
records act request or learn to read campaign disclosures or learn to do both. Know
who you are up against. Be the person who raises the red flags. At least join the
conversation. You cannot sit on the sidelines and expect victory.
You don't have to be the commander. You don't have to do it full time. Just be willing to
lend a hand. Just be willing to stay informed. Just be willing to help others stay
informed.

People remember Paul Revere. Few people remember Dr. Samuel Prescott. At 1 a.m.
on April 19, 1775, Revere ran into Prescott, who was on his way home from a party.
Prescott was willing to help. Without Prescottʼs knowledge of the farms surrounding
them, Revere's task would have been all the more difficult that night. And when Revere
rode out into the countryside, Prescott stayed behind on the farms and in his town
rallying people, getting his brother to go to the next town to rally people. They were not
Paul Revere, but they joined him and added to his voice.

You do not have to be Paul Revere starting your own ride out into the night. You can be
Samuel Prescott. Just join us at RedState or elsewhere with knowledge of your
community and your issues and spread the word. Recruit your family and friends. Sign
up for our email alerts. Be willing to take action when the email comes. But more
importantly, start sharing, start collaborating, start communicating. Itʼs too important for
us to do nothing and too necessary to doubt and retreat.

We've beaten them before. We can do it again. And this time, we can do it online,
where they think they are strongest.

RASMUSSEN: "The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month." Gee, do you think? Plus this: "A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is."

The problem for the MSM is that while they are puffing for Obama, the Dems in general, and much of the Liberal agenda, the general public is not stupid.  They KNOW this.  They UNDERSTAND that the tank is filled with so-called journalists.

How do I know these assertions? Simply look at the biz end with the quarterly earnings where newspapers are shedding subscribers and reporters faster than my greyhound ran to hide under the bed at the first clap of a summer thunderstorm.  I bet if you had a contest between eyeballs leaving the Big Three Newscasts and a drag racer, the latter would be coming up short.

So, which will come first - the peak oil decline of the Saudi fields or the collective clearing out of the "objective" media desks?

Objective - sure they are!

(H/T: Instapundit)

More from Yahoo News:

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

A plurality of Democrats--37%--say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama's party think reporters are trying to help McCain. Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain. In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

[snip]

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

[snip]

These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner. During Election 2004, CNN viewers heavily favored John Kerry while Fox Fans preferred George W. Bush.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 19, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

No matter whose interpretation you accept, you know that at the end of the day, Biundo's take is accurate, and most thinking persons will know this. What am I talking about? This video:

Here's what Michael Biundo, Chairman of the NH Advantage had to say about what was caught on tape:

As Chairman of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, I have made it my commitment to fight against higher taxes and keep spending to a reasonable level. Just this year we started spending cap drives in eight communities and instituted our "Defending the New Hampshire Advantage Pledge". The goal of the pledge and our spending cap proposals are to keep spending levels low enough that we do not need an income tax and that we do not lose our low tax advantage.

 These are not Republican proposals, these are not Democrat proposals, they are New Hampshire proposals. 

I have to be honest though, I am amazed that not one elected Democrat has signed our pledge and have found it even more amazing that their Chairman Ray Buckley and their  former Chairman Kathy Sullivan have spent time on progressive websites like Blue New Hampshire attacking our efforts. I guess what they don’t realize is that about 25-30% of the people who sign our spending cap proposals are in fact Democrats.  

Perhaps this video will shed some light on why they are attacking our efforts and  why spending in Concord under John Lynch and the current Democrat leadership has increased 17.5%.  Maybe if you listen closely, you will even hear what some Democrats leaders (including their Chairman) really think about an income tax.

To which NH Dem Party Chair Ray Buckley replied,

"So what is the point of the video?  Governor Lynch will veto an income tax if it reaches his desk or that a local woman at the Plymouth Democratic office doesn't support his decision to pledge to veto it?

The  woman's concern was Governor Lynch's rock solid opposition to an income tax

and that he took "the pledge" to veto an income tax- that is very clear. She said that if an "anti-pledge" candidate was running she would support that candidate, which I replied "of course", since that was very clear that she opposed taking "the pledge." I then made the point that one doesn't have to agree with every position of every candidate to support them," Buckley said in an e-mail.

So, does anybody think this means Buckley OPPOSES an income tax for NH? Please!

As an aside, I thought the heads up to the presence of a camera was quite telling as well. Maybe Mr. Buckley isn't all that far from NHGOP Chair Fergus Cullen on the video-taping issue after all... Heh! 

We all know Jeanne Shaheen's not so fond of the video "trackers" either  (More on "trackers" here)

As noted in this prior post, I recently participated in a bloggers' conference call with oil and gas industry experts from the American Petroleum Institute (API). While I highly recommend listening to the entire podcast or reading the entire transcript here, I thought I'd post the section with the discussion about the existing oil company leases for 'Grok readers who wish to know the real facts behind the false rhetoric being dished out by many Democrats, including our own from NH.

The discussion included 10 or so bloggers and featured three speakers: Red Cavaney, President ad CEO, American Petroleum Institute; John Felmy, Chief Economist, American Petroleum Institute; and Jim Hoskins, Group President, Government and Financial Services, Harris Interactive.

What I'm learning from these discussions is how much I didn't (and still don't) know about the machinations and complexities of the many parts that make up the whole of the energy industry here in the US...

MR. LAMBERT (GraniteGrok): Okay. Earlier this week, I had a chance to ask a question of one of our senatorial candidates who's been really kind of lacing Senator Sununu, our present senator, hard for his ties to big oil, et cetera. And so, I asked her – I told her that I've just bought a new vehicle. It's traditional in engine and all of that. I'll be paying for it for five years; I need it for business. So I said to her, if you're opposed to drilling, what does that do for me with my vehicle? I can't put a windmill on my car. I can't put pinecones in the tank or water or anything. I'm stuck with the traditional gasoline.

And she gave me the standard answer – there's another politician up here, Congressman Paul Hodes, who has filed legislation, and both of them are on the same track. And they're saying that we have a 14-year supply just waiting on 68 million acres of land that they have present leases that, quote, "big oil just won't drill on." Could you provide some kind of a talking-point-type answer that I can come back with when somebody tells me that because that seems to be – to a person, anybody who's opposed to expanded drilling or exploration – is that it seems like that they are all singing from the same playbook now. And that's – the oil companies have leases; they're just not using them.

RED CAVANEY: I think we can help you here. First of all, these are arguments that are put forth by people who don't understand how the industry operates. First of all, and I think this is sort of commonsensical, the Creator or evolution, whichever you want to tag, didn't put hydrocarbons – oil and natural gas, specifically – every place on the globe. History would show you, if you went back and looked at the leases that the federal government has let over a period of time, that, far and away, the large, large majority of leases have proven not to contain hydrocarbons in sufficient commodities that you could commercialize it.

So it is a – very specific examples. We're just getting data out right now. If you go back to the '96, '97 time period – and I choose that because that's a 10-year spread and we'll be talking about the OCS – if you look at the leases that were granted during that period, there were – the lease payments, in other words, the companies bid $2.3 billion to obtain about 3,200 leases. The lease term is typically 10 years, which means, at the end of 10 years, if a lease is not producing, then the company is obligated to turn it back to the federal government, forfeiting not only its original lease bid, but the annual lease payment it makes plus all of the expenditures it incurred in the exploratory phase to determine that there wasn't sufficient oil and gas available in commercial commodities to go ahead and extend the funds to put a production facility in place and to ultimately produce.

Ninety-three to 95 percent of the leases from those two years were expired, terminated, or they were relinquished, in other words, given back to the government even before the 10-year term ran. That gives you a bit of a sense that most of the leases don't end up being commercially producible oil or natural gas facilities.

Now, the other point that I would make is that companies have an idea, whether it's onshore or offshore, that there's the potential for oil and gas in certain areas. And so they make bids, but there's about a 10-step process, which I would be glad to bore you with if you wanted, that starts with the bid being accepted, and then after it's been accepted, you start with geological exploration, in other words surface work and before you go through all the other steps that lead up to the point as to whether or not you're going to produce. Probably 80 to 90 percent of the work on a lease is in this pre-production determination phase. That period of time has been euphemistically tagged by our critics as an idle lease, but I would submit to you, the lease in most cases is anything but idle.

When you get to–

MR. LAMBERT (GraniteGrok): So, now, let me just if you would let me interrupt for a second, so in order to even begin to determine more exactly whether the supply, before you can study, you have to actually lease?

MR. CAVANEY: Yes, we – the federal government puts out a notice of a public lease process and companies submit bids. And the government is required, as long as they can satisfy the minimum operating requirements, they're required to take the highest bid. That money is then paid before the company can do anything to go forward. A contract is signed with all the terms; it's a government contract, the companies have no input on it. It determines the length of the lease.

It determines the amount they're going to pay. It determines the royalty rate that they're going to pay if they do get to a production basis. So that's the very first step, and so a company, every company, has expended a fair amount of money to hold what in another business would be called inventory. In other words, this is their inventory. And it's a long, extended process to work through these, and so it should not surprise anyone that they come into a certain area and they may go pretty far on one of these particular lease tracks and determine that the geology here doesn't look like it has any oil or natural gas. And then they may look at a bunch of the surrounding tracks that are also leases and figure they're so much the identical that I'm going to now move to the next place where I think I have a chance of making a commercial discovery of oil or natural gas.

And so companies are constantly trying to upgrade the quality of their portfolio at these each individual bid rounds that occur. And then as leases expire for things that clearly don't have oil or gas, they give those back to the government and somebody else may bid on them or not. So this is a constant iterative process and the quality of their inventory, in other words, the things that they're working on to determine whether they can get to commercial production, is a very important part in their competitiveness with one another. John?

MR. CAVANEY: And the last point we would want to make on this is if you'll go back and look at the language that's actually in statute, this "use it or lose it" is already in current law. And a number of the people who are our leading critics actually signed or voted for that particular piece of legislation. Let me read you the actual language itself because this is kind of interesting in this big "use it or lose it" debate. It says, "no bid for a lease may be submitted if the Secretary" – and they're referring to the Secretary of the Interior – "finds after notice and hearing that the bidder is not meeting due diligence requirements on other leases." And by due diligence, they're referring to this period of time when 90 percent of the effort of the work is going on.

I might remind you also that during that period, before they can do any seismic exploration, they have to go and get through the government permitting process, approval, and that's one of the stages where oftentimes, there is objections are raised. That's oftentimes when suits are raised by certain people and the like, which delays the process. Well, let's assume they go through, shoot the seismic; they spend the analysis, they look at it, they get to the point where they think, all right, this is worth me putting some more of my capital at risk to actually drill an exploratory well because regardless of what seismic says, you never know what you've got until you drill at least one exploratory well.

Well, now you've got to go and go to the government permitting process again to get a permit to be able to drill. So this long process that's being considered idle is anything but idle. And it involves a lot of interaction with the public over which the company has no control. It's governed by the due process, if you will.

MR. LAMBERT (GraniteGrok): Now, I'm intrigued by the "pig in the poke" statement because that's my understanding as well. And I really think that for you guys to get the message out, that it's a tremendous gamble, it seems, for the company to even get involved because you're basically guessing on a tract of land, until you actually lease it, whether it's going to be viable. Is that a good sound bite to describe your present situation?

MR. CAVANEY: Yes, it is, absolutely.

MR. HAGENS: This is Nate Hagens. I think most people, or many people including myself, don't know what a pig and a poke is, so you might want to explain that if you write that up.

MR. CAVANEY: (Laughter.) Wait, that's an economist talking so this can be fairly sophisticated. I'll have John speak slowly on this.

MR. FELMY: It's the old, actually medieval, expression that when you were buying animals at a farm, you never knew what was in that burlap sack. It could be a pig or it could be nothing. So it's just an ancient expression that I love using at times.

[Thanks to API's New Media Advisor Jane Van Ryan for inviting us to participate] 

And when people do bad things that tarnish the Republican brand, stand up and protect it even if they are the well connected and powerful that are doing it.

Like THIS lady (H/T: Tim - Here's a perfect example of why current Republican leadership, both nationally in most states, must be wiped out and replaced with REAL Republicans, instead of political pigs at the trough):

The 11th commandment of politics is that elected officials shall not take sides in their party primaries. Then again, Missouri Republicans are burdened with so many sins, what's one more?

For an insight as to why the GOP is down and out in Washington, take a look at Jefferson City. That's where Sarah Steelman, the state treasurer, is running in an Aug. 5 primary for the Missouri governorship. And it's where her reform campaign against earmarks and self-dealing is threatening the entrenched status quo, causing her own party to rise against her.

So bitter are House Minority Whip Roy Blunt and Sen. Kit Bond at Ms. Steelman's attack on their cherished spending beliefs that last month they rallied the entire Missouri congressional delegation to put out a public statement openly criticizing her campaign against six-term U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof. Joining them in their support of Mr. Hulshof has been the vast majority of the state Republican machine. Ms. Steelman is clearly doing something right.

Her sin is in fact to belong to that new mold of Republican – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint – who know it's no longer enough to simply hawk lower taxes. In 10 years as a state legislator and treasurer, her target has been the slothful political favor factory that's led Republicans away from small-government principles and outraged conservative voters.

[snip]

If Ms. Steelman's bid shows anything, it's how determined a wandering Republican Party, both nationally and locally, is to hold on to the bad habits that lost them their reputation. Beware to the reformer.

Principles over status quo - what a novel (and Right) idea!

I have written about Government replacing private charity at length (here, here, here, and here;   Doug, writing on the RESPECT teen clinic, show another aspect of ever increasing government).

When Paul starts to analyze what Obama wants Big Government to do, he is essentially saying is that American are now the "no-can-do" people - we cannot do for ourselves and have to rely on government:  This is not change we can believe in. This is change we must snort at in utter derision.

Is there any governmental goofiness Democrats won’t support?